[edanm]

I disagree. Do you have a reason to think you're right? Or a better way to represent value?

(Note again: I'm talking specifically about productive value to a society. Someone without a lot of money can still be enormously valuable in many other respects, e.g. a beloved family member.)

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Many of the people who are extremely wealthy did so by exploiting society and corporations are well known for consistently dumping their externalities on society to deal with while reaping the benefits for themselves and their shareholders.

To say that money is a good proxy for value to society seems incredibly naive at best and downright disingenuous at worst.

[edanm]

I know yours is a common view. I just think it's wrong.

There are certainly some wealthy individuals who "exploited society". But I don't think that's a majority (depending on how you define wealthy.) I also don't think most corporations are just dumping externalities on society and reaping benefits. The age of corporations is also at least partially the age with the best standards of living and the best life for most people, at least in terms of wealth.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> I also don't think most corporations are just dumping externalities on society and reaping benefits

Are you measuring most in terms of where the money goes or just the number of corporations? Because some of the biggest are quite literally causing climate change, poising the land, and getting people killed (if not killing them directly).

Of those that are left I'd still make the argument that they're destroying public health through marketing, but apparently "having ads shoved at you all day every day damages your mental health and that damages society as a whole" is somehow a controversial statement because marketing helps people make money.

[lazyasciiart]

Now you’re just arguing about what percentage of wealth was fairly earned, which is not at all the same as the original terrible claim.