[Harvey-Specter]

A lot of people are better at a lot of things than the current administration, that shouldn't be a benchmark.

And this argument is garbage. Individuals accumulating massive amounts of wealth doesn't do any good for society.

[rich-and-poor]

I don't think it's a garbage argument, I think that individuals with massive wealth have two useful qualities:

1) They are competent at wealth accumulation, which indicates some level of aptitude and intelligence

2) They have a large mass of capital with which to fund new businesses and ventures, and are likely to pick good candidates because of 1)

So, I don't see the problem here. It seems to me like they have an enormous good thing to offer society.

[throwawayjava]

I don't think I know anyone who thinks that funding successful businesses is the ultimate goal of a society.

Many people argue that it's the best mechanism we have for achieving whatever our actual goals should be, but few if any will claim that running businesses is itself the higher purpose of human civilization.

In order for this conversation to be productive, we'd all have to agree on some underlying moral framework prescribing what society ought to achieve. And then we'd have to evaluate whether ultra-wealth people allocate their capital in a way that achieves that outcome.

No small tasks! But I expect that in the course of such a conversation, we might discover that there are a wide variety of rich people who spend their wealth in a wide variety of ways. Some of those people will typify your caricature of the rich, and some of those people will typify Harvey-Specter's caricature.

Finally, as an aside, you put the ultra-rich on quite a pedastal. They're just people who decided they wanted to accumulate wealth and then did a good job at achieving that.

It's admirable to do so well in a competitive environment, but no more or less admirable than the top 1% in anything else (a sport, medicine, religious/military leadership, teaching, etc.). Being great in a competitive atmosphere is a good signal, but wealth accumulation is not the only place where great humans compete and wealth is not the only metric which great humans use to measure their life's work...

[amelius]

> It's admirable to do so well in a competitive environment, but no more or less admirable than the top 1% in anything else (a sport, medicine, religious/military leadership, teaching, etc.).

Yes. And the irony is that the wealth accumulators ultimately do so using achievements made by other people, who cared more about other things than accumulating wealth.

Also, I don't think that the top 1% should have all the benefits (winner takes all).

[rich-and-poor]

I actually agree that we need an underlying moral framework.

Just for fun, what is your underlying moral framework?

Mine would be population and economic growth, environmental protection, and disaster avoidance.

[rhcom2]

I think #1 is a common American thought but without any evidence. It takes no aptitude or intelligence to inherit money.

And #2 just sounds like a rephrasing of trickle down economics, which is economically questionable at best.

[rich-and-poor]

Well what other "economics" are there if not "trickle-down" economics? How else, exactly, does wealth get from the rich to the poor if not through employment?

[jtolmar]

> How else, exactly, does wealth get from the rich to the poor if not through employment?

Taxes.

> Well what other "economics" are there if not "trickle-down" economics?

If the people have money you can make money by making things they want and selling to them.