[brandonr49]

I think this is a fantastic analogy, except instead of 5'7 and 6'3 it's 5'7 and 50,000' tall. You bet society would start to have some pretty interesting laws if there were a bunch of people running around that were ten thousand times the size of the median person. It would be agreed that people of this size, while capable of incredible things, present a significant problem for the general population and they consume A LOT of resources. Certainly the population would prefer if they were only 1000 feet tall, after all, it's impossible to maintain perspective if your head is in the clouds, far from the median person.

[fragmede]

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ is a great visualization of just how wealthy one particular billionaire is.

We're all closer to being millionaires than Jeff Bezos.

[ntumlin]

> We're all closer to being millionaires than Jeff Bezos.

This is true in terms of orders of magnitude, but gets hilariously true when looking at the absolute numbers.

The difference in wealth of a homeless person and a (barely) millionaire is about a million ($1,000,000).

The difference in wealth of that millionaire and Jeff Bezos is about a Jeff Bezos ($138,999,000,000).

[dmitrygr]

That website rubs me the wrong way in so many ways - the premise of "what could we do with X% of $what_someone_who_is_not_me_owns" with no concern for the owner, and "no person deserves this much wealth" with no concern given to the very important question of: Who can judge what anyone "Deserves"?

[bennyelv]

The premise of your objection to it is that there is nothing of a higher moral status than protecting ownership of property.

Why is that more important than any other moral axiom?

[jacobush]

They can keep their wealth because the rest of us protects it, often with our blood. (Military and police, for a start, but that’s just scratching the surface.)