This is redistribution.
Buy low sell high.
Sell here, buy here.
And anything non equal can be turned into “profit”.
Profit in turn makes interest, and can be used to
buy other business, or do loans.
Juggling coins is a way to get rich,
and if you die, your kids get the money and they make a business too.
A family business.
People have a tendency, in the US at least, to only think of “redistribution of wealth” when we start talking about feeding the poor. But they forget about that time that Reaganonmics redistributed all the wealth to a small number of people thus removing it from the hands of the people who were actually working and building and doing things in the world that we would consider earning. So what’s wrong with redistributing wealth when it goes to the people who work and earn, when it’s ok to redistribute it to a small group of people with political leverage?
I didn’t say it’s wrong.
I don’t know about maximum money,
but we should, and in some places we do,
have a minimum amount of money.
Welfare / social assistance.
That seems ethical. I mean hey, nothing wrong with wanting to get rich, but at a certain point when you’re hoarding everything in the world, the only thing you can get with more money is more poor people. You’ve already bought all the shit you need, and all the shit a normal person would want. I mean, if a crazy old man hoards shit in his house until they place is full of all kinds of old shit, we call him crazy and a hoarder. But if someone does it with money, then some people worship that and think that makes him the best.
I agree with your statement.
The questions you’ve got to ask are, “what’s the cost on society of having a class of billionaires?”, and “can one person really earn or do something to rightfully entitle them to billions of dollars?”
Depends all on what these billionaires are doing.
Some of them make basically fair systems. The systems grow, and change, and are not equal, but they can be fair.
They could pay 30% higher wages than the other guys, give a ton of jobs, but still make a profit for themselves.
It’s not really a class, or is it?
I see it as the consiquences of law.
We don’t truly earn things, in general.
Well, then it becomes a conversation about who should have what influence over the law.
Democratic law means that the majority gang gets to control the law.
If there was a fight, the bigger mass may win.
But they bipass the fight, and just yield to the force.
Law is force, anyways. It has to do with forcing all kinds of behavior and ideas.
Well the biggest group doesn’t always win.