[simianwords]

I’m asking you very clearly how poor people’s consumption would change if you taxed the rich wealth?

The wealth is zero sum - you have to take away investments from Amazon etc and drive it into other places. That means Amazon will be smaller, employ fewer people and produce lesser. Why do you think that is necessarily a good thing? If you think that it is, then you can also stop the NASA program and drive all funds to poverty.

[pjc50]

You're eliding the distinction between people and businesses. There's no reason Amazon the company would have to be smaller simply because the Bezos fortune was distributed among more people. It didn't get 50% smaller or employ 50% fewer people when he got divorced and had to split the marital property.

[simianwords]

Fair point. Let’s take McKinsey and her woke charities. She sold Amazon shares and drove it into the charities. The charities are now consuming more. So there has to be equal decrease somewhere else right? People are consuming equally less somewhere else to allow for extra activity in charities.

You might think this is a nitpick but this is my main argument. If you redistribute Bezos wealth to poor people, there has to be equivalent reduction somewhere else.

[ProfessorLayton]

MacKenzie's charities mainly focus on job training, education, health, and you posit that'll cause an equivalent reduction in spending somewhere else?

Is that really your train of thought?

[simianwords]

Yes exactly

[ProfessorLayton]

Oh okay, you might want to brush up on what it means to have an educated and healthy workforce.