[AnimalMuppet]

Not really that, no.

Say Microsoft didn't do the shady, anticompetitive stuff stuff it did. Would they be as big? No, but they'd still be huge. Bill Gates wouldn't be as rich, but he'd still be a multi-billionaire.

And how would he have gotten there? By enabling hundreds of millions of people to be able to use computers better. That is, he would have become a multi-billionaire by making his customers lives better.

There wasn't a system of "dragging money toward billionaires" (well, all right, there is, but he wasn't using it). He was using the system of "making things that have low manufacturing cost that have really high value to the customer". That system of creating billionaires has to remain operational, or we all suffer.

[dTal]

Bill Gates did not, personally, earn a hundred billion dollars, by any meaningful definition of the word "earn". That is what is meant by "system of dragging money toward billionaires", not any reference to anti-competitive practices. If you want to argue that all that money represents value contributed to the world, well then fine, but it's not value that Bill Gates himself created; it's at the very least value created by the employees of Microsoft that he skimmed off like a feudal lord.

Nobody needs a 12-figure bank account. We certainly don't need to allow private individuals to have that much power in order to incentivize creation.

[AnimalMuppet]

> it's not value that Bill Gates himself created; it's at the very least value created by the employees of Microsoft that he skimmed off like a feudal lord.

That is true. And yet, Microsoft also made many of those employees into millionaires. Is your objection that they should have become multi-millionaires instead? (Yes, I know, not all became millionaires either.)

And what is your proposed solution? That business owners not be allowed to keep the profits of their business? That owners of large businesses not be allowed to keep the profits? Or... what?

Be careful what you wish for. In particular, be careful that you not destroy the engines of progress just because you don't like the unevenness of the distribution of their fruits.

[tetris11]

> That is true. And yet, Microsoft also made many of those employees into millionaires. Is your objection that they should have become multi-millionaires instead? (Yes, I know, not all became millionaires either.)

Microsoft is not a single entity, it is the combined efforts of thousands of talented and not-so talented devs. The success of the company should yield financial reward for all employees at a uniform rate.

> And what is your proposed solution? That business owners not be allowed to keep the profits of their business? That owners of large businesses not be allowed to keep the profits? Or... what?

That they pay their taxes, and that the pay ratios between highest and lowest paid employees in the company are capped to something that is less than 500:1.

[AnimalMuppet]

That doesn't solve dTal's complaint. Bill Gates got rich as an owner, not primarily as an employee.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

That last sentence reminds me of the saying "if you chase away my demons, some of my angels might follow them."