[madsbuch]

> It's anti-meritocratic for someone to invest their money intelligently in the stock market?

I like how you threw in the word "intelligently" like this investments was planned and thought out from the beginning ;)

Thresholds are are not that hard to decide: It is about taxation that takes macro-economic behaviour and targets into account.

We have a political party that wants to reduce capital gains tax in Denmark (currently 27%/42%). However, analysis shows that this would benefit only the wealthiest 2% so the consensus is that this is a bad idea from a macro economic perspective.

The value of money is relative. Your 1 million dollars are worthless if everyone else has 10 million dollars. The second people act upon and realise that, we can start to build good economic systems.

[zaptheimpaler]

If you really don’t believe that it’s possible to invest intelligently, better than others that’s just wrong. There are many people who have done that. Like there are 10000s of investments and over any long period of time, some will so far far better than others. Some of those will be public companies or otherwise be investments that are open to all people.

[madsbuch]

I do believe that. But your choices has diminishing effects over long term. And also, in a meritocracy the "profit" needs to be congruent to the merits.

I think there is a broad consensus that talent won't make you a billionarie in the stock market, otherwise we had seen many more people become billionaires in the stock market.

If you really believe that that the person in question got billionaire on the stock market by their merits that’s just wrong.

[lobocinza]

Macro-economy shows that EU is doing wrong as US companies outperform EU companies. Wealth/power concentration isn't due to capitalism but due to human nature and society scale.

Even if success greatest factor is luck it still requires merit. By punishing success you're punishing people that put money into savings, that attempt to innovate and improve human society, that invest in promising areas. In the long term society will be stagnant. And I doubt that in the short term society will be more equal because forced distribution of wealth historically increases inequality.

[wokkel]

Maybe companies, but they are not what should matter. As far as know the amount of poor people in the usa is also way higher than in Europe. If we take that into account i'd say that Europe is doing just fine.

[jganetsk]

> As far as know the amount of poor people in the usa is also way higher than in Europe. If we take that into account i'd say that Europe is doing just fine.

Citation needed. No, Europe is not doing just fine. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/americans-are-generally-richer...

[madsbuch]

this is a strawman. you can't eat gdp per capita for dinner. yes, US people produce more waetlh for rich people. but they don't take home that wealth.

try to find some statistics around spending power https://x.com/dima_heyqq/status/1758508340953448525?s=48&t=H...

[fiestaman]

From your link:

  Singapore – 7922 $ / month
  Qatar 5628
  UAE – 5585
  Kuwait – 5250
  Switzerland – 5232
  Denmark – 4894
  Germany – 4667
  Austria – 4484
  Saudi Arabia – 4419
  South Korea – 4076
  USA – 4066
  Canada - 4026
  Sweden – 3666
  France – 3556
  Hong Kong – 3219
  Spain – 3148
  UK – 3127
  Finland – 2827
  Israel – 2770
  Poland – 2753
  Portugal – 2220
  Russia – 2159
  China – 1823 (urban non-private) 1053 (urban private)
  Thailand – 1769
  Indonesia – 1051

[jganetsk]

That's all included in the article, which admittedly is behind a paywall. He goes into great detail, including purchasing power parity, means vs medians, etc.

And the conclusion is the US generates more wealth for the middle class than Europe does.

[RestlessMind]

Wasn't it just last year that the richest man and the richest woman in the world were both French? A statement at "Europe" level is far too generic, especially when it comes to economic policies or quality of life. Europe includes both Norway and Moldova and the variance in the quality of life is much higher than Massachusetts vs Mississippi.

[lobocinza]

> If we take that into account i'd say that Europe is doing just fine.

If things are so good why Europe is being dominated by authoritarian populists?

[madsbuch]

I don't really understand this comment. I also feels it needlessly sets up a polarisation nobody asked for.

I questioned the US paradoxes on philanthropy and meritocracy.

For all I care, you can hold on to your "America first, whatever country second", "F*k yea, America" and all that.

[lobocinza]

I'm not North American, the intention wasn't to polarize. I don't know what to answer. It feels like you don't like to have your beliefs questioned, so no point in talking.

[madsbuch]

I am sorry about that. please question my beliefs! I am just a bit in doubt on what belief you question?

you can derive from my statements that I don't think the current landscape in the US is entirely meritocraric or democratic as a single person can amass serious influence by investing in the stock market.

you respond that at least the US is richer than the EU, which is probably right. But I don't understand what belief it challenges? That it should justify a less democratic or meritocratic system?

please enlighten me :)