[CapricornNoble]

>> And that's what the ultra-wealthy do. They exercise power over other people.

Arguably, there is always SOMEONE doing this, even without ultra-wealth. Perhaps the argument could be made that the ultra-wealthy are the least malign manifestation of power-hungry sociopathic megalomania?

It's not like Stalin in the 30s or Mao in the 50s were using wealth to buy people, for example. But they sure as Hell led to really negative outcomes for the people they influenced. Far more negative than any damage that Musk/Bezos/Buffet/et al are doing now, IMO.

[lapcat]

Of course there are always some people striving for power over others. And of course the current billionaires are not as bad as Stalin or Mao. That's not really the question. The question is whether society should strive to prevent individuals from acquiring great power over the masses, and my answer is yes. In other words, even though billionaires are not as bad as dictators, billionaires should still be discouraged rather than encouraged.

What I was arguing against was this: "If one person's ideas and actions brings up the standard of living for everyone else, I'm fine with that person having more wealth." It's not clear that they do bring up the standard of living for everyone else. For example, poor people can't afford to buy a Tesla, so what has Musk done to raise the standard of living for the poor? Let's be honest: Tesla caters to the wealthy. Moreover, as I argued, it's not just about material goods. It's about power. It's also about personal freedom for the masses; how much personal freedom would you trade just to have more material goods?

[CapricornNoble]

>the question is whether society should strive to prevent individuals from acquiring great power over the masses

Whatever people or person has the authority to prevent individuals from acquiring great power over the masses.....has great power over the masses.

The power-hungry don't like being told they can't do something. Another possible outcome is the uber-rich start converting their wealth into men-at-arms to secure their power. Every time my wealth ticks over from $998M to $999M I burn $1M secretly acquiring the loyalty of violent men. Eventually my wealth goes from $999M to $1B and the Equality Enforcers pay me a visit....only to find out the hard way that they didn't bring enough bannermen. I don't think its particularly far-fetched to conclude that eventually men with near-limitless resources and near-limitless egos will resort to armed conflict before they allow some paper-pushing bureaucrats to put them back in a box. Maybe that's not the character of Buffet or even Musk, but on a long enough timeline I consider it a certainty. It's better for everyone that they collect yachts and "atmosphere models"( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSvvvrKhx0w ) instead.

> For example, poor people can't afford to buy a Tesla, so what has Musk done to raise the standard of living for the poor?

I think in a system as complex as the world economy it's difficult to pinpoint this with any certainty. MAYBE one could argue that Tesla forced a paradigm shift onto other automakers and that the entire industry dragging its feet to produce EVs is a net quality of life improvement for the civilization in the aggregate due to reduced emissions?

Why are we judging the wealthy by their utility to the poor anyway? Belle Delphine isn't a billionaire, but at one point she was making >$1 million per month shaking her butt on a webcam and selling used bathwater to lonely males. Are we going to judge EVERYONE by how they've raised the standard of living for the poor? Where is the cutoff point? $1B net worth? $1M annual income? The market principles which have elevated Elon Musk to the top of his industry have similarly elevated Belle Delphine to the top of hers, with massively disproportionate earnings compared to the bottom-tier OnlyFans content creators. Do we have enough moral outrage for them both? Why or why not? Who has the authority to judge?

> how much personal freedom would you trade just to have more material goods?

I'm a military reservist who is considering returning to full Active Duty for several years so trading away my personal freedom is.....quite normal to me. That said....I have pretty modest material desires, and am mostly trading my personal freedom for.....wealth accumulation! If you're going to own something, own something that other people need, and that generates revenue.

[lapcat]

> Whatever people or person has the authority to prevent individuals from acquiring great power over the masses.....has great power over the masses.

I'm talking about the masses. The masses of people should prevent individuals from acquiring great power over them.

> Why are we judging the wealthy by their utility to the poor anyway?

That didn't come from me but from the person I was originally replying to: "If one person's ideas and actions brings up the standard of living for everyone else, I'm fine with that person having more wealth."

I guess it was supposed to be some kind of justification for massive inequality. That's not my criterion though.

[BiteCode_dev]

Stalin and Mao were wealthy. That's why many people argue we never implemented communism, since our attempts ended up as oligarchies.

Just because you don't have a paper stating you own something doesn't mean you don't control it.