martin ↑
@martin
I like the subtle re-framing Zohran does here. The liberal thing of "Billionares shouldn't exist" is silly and makes post people that say it look dumb. It's an easy tagline but 1 billion is also a bad metric. BUT you do have to ask - what's the marginal benefit of Zuck/Bezos/Gates having their 100th or 200th billion dollars? Surely society would be better of if 80% of that billion went to something else? Obviously not easily done (or done at all?) since most of it is just in a company that they started, but idk https://x.com/Osint613/status/1939351985079394555
4 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
matthewb
@matthewb
seneca's take below is on point, with no incentive then how will wealth be created in the first place? but for the sake of argument let's say you could magically liquidate all of gates/elon/bezos' assets (~$789B)—even though in reality you'd get far less—those funds could do *one* of the following: - cover the U.S. budget for ~6 weeks at current spending - give every citizen a cheque for ~$2.5k - fund ~25% of the ~$3.2T needed for 1yr of universal healthcare of course their wealth could go towards more productive ends than sitting in their brokerage accounts, but it's not going to magically make every american's life a utopia.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
martin ↑
@martin
I agree with your last point and I don't think people are claiming it'll make everyone's lives better automatically, but to me it does feel like a step in the right direction that the richest people help contribute to broader society more!
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
