|
> Imbalance is not a zero-sum issue. Yes, totally support this argument. Most people advocating for rich people's existence is that they can more effectively utilize the resources and power. But they never tough upon the imbalance itself. The imbalance has 2 aspects to it:
* Utility: Does imbalance proclaims efficiency.
* Morality: Is it moral to have imbalance. Of ucz, both aspects need themselves to be balanced. I.e., we do encourage people with the obvious talent to enjoy imbalanced power and fortune. Like the young Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and now Elon Musk. It is more utilitarian, and more moral to have these people enjoying more imbalanced power and fortune, then the older Steve, Bill, and Elon; in the sense, that when they are less talent, they should be pushed to be less entitled, and prefer a more moral position in the imbalance. I mean, what Bill Gates does is not particularly more brilliant than a government directed research organization. Then why do we allow such a large fortune sit there without being spent for the people, after all, the fortunate was not earned by Bill the individual, it's a symbol of attribution through the capitalism system. |