[dbsights]

> wouldn't want to continue accumulating it as they know it's purely at the expense of other people

> Therefore, having a billion dollars is a clear sign that millions of people have been exploited by that billionaire.

When two people enter a trade freely, they both come out richer. How is that at the expense of other people?

You sound like a communist.

[ndsipa_pomu]

> When two people enter a trade freely, they both come out richer. How is that at the expense of other people?

Firstly, there's the myth of a "free trade" - that requires both parties to have sufficient knowledge about the deal/product and to have equal bargaining power. That's a very rare thing with Capitalism as the richer party will have much better access to information (and also the influence to bury certain information) and will have a much better bargaining position in any negotiation.

Secondly - even though two parties trading with each other can both obtain an advantage from the deal, that's often at the expense of parties not involved with the deal e.g. I can go and buy cheap groceries at a discount supermarket, and would consider that both the supermarket and I benefit, but that will often be at the expense (or due to the exploitation) of the food producers and workers.

> You sound like a communist.

Thank you, but maybe "socialist" is a more acceptable political term

[deepfriedchokes]

That’s the thing, though, labor isn’t entering into an agreement “freely”, they are entering into an agreement under economic duress.

You can’t freely consent if someone has power over you, and in a Capitalist system Capital has power over labor. Capitalism is therefore abusive and exploitative, by design.

For the record, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Communist.