[sjtindell]

The idea you’re arguing is well known on this forum in my experience. In principle I agree, people who act like Jeff Bezos has $100 billion in the bank do more damage to the conversation than good. But I think it also avoids some truth. The wealthy are not usually buying $50 million apartments or $100 million super yachts with stock.

[beaconstudios]

Yeah of course there's some truth that wealthy people have more money than poor people, but you have to argue from actual facts about these things. If I start a company that's worth a ton of money then it's because I'm providing a ton of value to my customers (excluding some more arguable examples like HFTs). So the value I have is exchange value in the case of net assets, or the potential for future exchange value in the case of shares. Its a reward for doing societally-valued work.

Of course there are reasonable arguments that shareholders are treated preferentially to labour in our economy and that that's as bad thing, but the basic premise of "the wealthy people have all the stuff so let's take their stuff" is just class warfare, not a reasonable argument.

[Can_Not]

It's already class warfare, whether you like it or not. The people are only playing the role of self defence.

> not a reasonable argument

It's only "not a reasonable argument" if you mentally substitute how cartoonishly huge, rich, authoritarian, etc. Bezos and Amazon actually are with a mom and pop shop or a guy who owns a single factory.

[beaconstudios]

Self defence against what? Authoritarian against who? I genuinely don't see why rich people as a whole are evil. Some, sure - Bezos clearly treats his workers like shit. But as a class I don't see them as inherently bad.

[Can_Not]

> “Billionaires don’t actually HAVE all that money, most of it is stocks” that’s fine i’ll take the stocks

-- InternetHippo on Twitter