[palata]

> your reward is losing control if it?

That's not what I understand from the GP. What they say is taht if your business is extremely successful, it can keep being extremely successful and you can keep control over it.

You just cannot accumulate more money for yourself. Like if the highest amount of money in a video game was 1 billion. Once you reach it, you don't go back to 0, you just can't go higher.

Makes sense to me.

[philsnow]

I'm reminded of Nethack, which keeps track of your score as a 32-bit* signed int, and so some people have perfected making sure that they have MAX_INT when they win.. and then it becomes a game of trying to do as much as you can in the game without going over MAX_INT.

* though I guess newer builds are defaulting to 64-bit signed ints?

[BrenBarn]

>What they say is taht if your business is extremely successful, it can keep being extremely successful and you can keep control over it.

> You just cannot accumulate more money for yourself.

If that's what it means, I don't think it makes sense, because the point of taking away the money was to reduce the ability of the rich to unduly control and influence others. If they can still do that via their company that they still control, it doesn't much matter whether they have money or not.

[palata]

> If they can still do that via their company that they still control, it doesn't much matter whether they have money or not.

Of course it does. It's very different to be the head of a company and to privately have more money than an entire country.

[Workaccount2]

I face palm through the back of my skull when people think billionaires have billions of dollars. Virtually none of them do.

[palata]

I talk about the ultra-rich as "they have waaaaay too much money". I do understand that this is not exactly big purse with a lot of cash that they carry everywhere with them. Still, it's way too much.

[Workaccount2]

They have tons of assets and not much money. That's part of why the problem is so intractable.

People put limits on what they should be able to own, but if we extend that idea globally (i.e. don't discriminate based on simply where you were born), then most of us in the first world would also be liable to give up our TVs, cars, latops, houses etc. And then suddenly seizing assets is bad...

The problem is not simple or straightforward. It's mostly people who want more complaining about those who also want more.

[palata]

> The problem is not simple or straightforward

Nobody says it's simple or straightforward. I personally just admitted that there is an amount of wealth that is too much.

You sound like you're telling me that because it's a hard problem to solve, I should just shut up.