I find this mentality is always directed at rich people, but never applied consistently in anyone's life, so I have a hard time taking this opinion seriously. Hopefully, you can convince me otherwise, but I've never heard anyone suggest the best sports teams should stop competing when they've won enough, or that the best inventors should stop, or the best artists, and so on. Money isn't zero sum. We're constantly creating insanely large quantities of money. If the people at the top are accumulating that money from individual consumers making their own free choices, then would you suggest that the people at the end of the line be given things for free? Or maybe they should be disallowed from making the purchases? Or maybe you're suggesting the rich keep selling but they're forced to give the profits away? and who would they give it away too? The federal government controls more money than any entire private business, so obviously it controls orders of magnitude more than any individual. Should these wealthy individuals be forced to give their money to the largest money holders in the world? What value system would that make sense in?
> never heard anyone suggest the best sports teams should stop competing when they've won enough, or that the best inventors should stop, or the best artists
While they want you to believe that, there’s no correlation between being rich and being best, or even good, at anything. You’re not the best athlete because your mom and dad were the best athletes. But if your parents were wealthy, you’re wealthy.
If they want standards to be applied ”consistently”, great. They can start by paying their taxes.
If you have issue with the taxes they pay then you have issue with the tax code, but that still doesn't address any problems or apply any consistent values. How does moving money from one rich person to the richest organization in the world achieve any goal?
Money is just a way of keeping track of to what fraction of future output of other people you are entitled to (as agreed upon by human race).
Why shouldn't this quantity be softly capped at some value to prevent natural runaway towards 100%? What's wrong about capping it on the other side slightly above zero for the purposes of personal survival and preventing organic deterioration?
> Or maybe you're suggesting the rich keep selling but they're forced to give the profits away?
Obviously that.
> and who would they give it away too?
That is really irrelevant. The money they gave away can literally be burnt and it would still improve the situation. Money is not value. Money is just a score indicating how much value are you entitled to obtain in the future.
> The federal government controls more money than any entire private business
Is that true? Despite trillions of debt? There are national governments in the world (and not small ones) that currently owe more to businesses than they own assets.
Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success. Once you win everything you should step aside and let others have their fun. You shouldn't feel compelled to punish your body even harder for years to come and others shouldn't have to wait till your performance deteriorates.
> Money is just a way of keeping track of to what fraction of future output of other people you are entitled to (as agreed upon by human race).
I don't agree with this definition of money. The vast majority of money doesn't represent human output/labor and none of it is created by human labor. Probably the simplest to understand example of that is crypto. It represents trillions of USD in wealth and has almost no human labor input or output. That's a simple example, but certainly not the only example.
> Is that true? Despite trillions of debt?
Yes it's true. It's not even close. The US federal government spends in a single year more than the largest companies in this world would cost to buy flat out. They could save up for roughly 6 months and buy out the most expensive company in the world (apple). A company that has been growing their wealth for 50 years. This is why I struggle to find a consistent value system that claims we are solving problems by taking money from big earners and giving it to entities that already control many orders of magnitude more money. Moving money from the grossly rich to the insanely unthinkably rich doesn't make much sense to me.
> Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success.
What problem does this solve? I don't have anything much against it either, but I can't find any reason to do this.
> The vast majority of money doesn't represent human output/labor and none of it is created by human labor.
I agree. That's completely not what I said.
Money is how we keep track of what fraction of the future output of others (of our civilization really) someone or some organization is entited to command (consume or destroy for their needs or schemes) in the future.
> US federal government spends in a single year more than the largest companies in this world would cost to buy flat out.
I'm still not convinced. You can spend a lot when you are incredibly deep in debt. Spending doesn't make you rich.
> This is why I struggle to find a consistent value system that claims we are solving problems by taking money from big earners and giving it to entities that already control many orders of magnitude more money.
The point is not giving money, it's taking the money away. Because there's a limit of how much control over others any single person deserves regardless of what they did.
>> Completely unrelated but since you asked, I have nothing against capping athletes at the top level of success.
> What problem does this solve?
No global problem. But professional sport takes a huge toll on the body and pretty much excludes those people from any useful form of activity for entire span of their career and possibly later only for our grotesque entertainment. I don't agitate for limits in sport but that's just an example that reasonable limits may benefit people in many areas.
> Money is how we keep track of [...] output of others
How do I reconcile that you agree money doesn't represent the output of others, while understanding this comment that says it keeps track of the output of others?
> Spending doesn't make you rich.
I would argue that being rich doesn't matter at all. We can always print more money. The only part of being rich that matters is the influence your spending represents. Otherwise it's nothing more than numbers in a computer database and has no impact on the world. The fact that the government spends so aggressively is what makes their influence so powerful and scary. Unlike rich individuals, the governments wage war frequently. I would much rather see random people have obscene net worth rather than see major countries grow their military budget, building weapons that are even more efficient at killing poor people in other countries.
> Because there's a limit of how much control over others any single person deserves regardless of what they did.
agreed, that's why it matters so much as to where the money is going when you take it from rich individuals. Giving it the federal government grows their military budget, which the president of the US has complete control over. A single individual with the authority to launch a full-scale invasion tomorrow. Compare that to elon musk or bill gates. Their purchasing influence is infinitesimally small compared to the same money utilized by the federal government.
> sport takes a huge toll on the body and pretty much excludes those people from any useful form of activity for entire span of their career and possibly later only for our grotesque entertainment.
valid argument. I don't agree with it, but I don't find the argument to be inconsistent or without merit.
> How do I reconcile that you agree money doesn't represent the output of others, while understanding this comment that says it keeps track of the output of others?
Simple. If for example government decides to print million dollars and give it to you for no reason then it doesn't represent any economic output of others yet you having it means that you are entitled to acquiring some economic output of others in the future.
Basically you can easily get money by contributing nothing or even by destroying economic value, but this money entitles you to acquiring economic output of someone else. Money is nothing more, nothing less, just a right to useful things people other people (and their machines) do.
> I would argue that being rich doesn't matter at all.
Great, so you don't oppose taking a significant part of wealth of the people that hoard so much of it, right? Since it doesn't matter at all.
> Unlike rich individuals, the governments wage war frequently.
Business literally devastated entire planet, is in the process of acidifying the oceans, raising sea levels, poisoning biosphere, destroying communities, health, lives, all the time. I don't think governments will ever do this much bad (unless WW3 happens). All thanks to unchecked power of having too much money and wanting even more because it's allowed. You seriously underestimate impact of greed and overestimate impact of governments.
> agreed, that's why it matters so much as to where the money is going when you take it from rich individuals
I'm telling you for the third time that it doesn't have to go anywhere. It can be burned as easily as it was printed. And no value is lost. Only the share of influence on the future changes so that the richest loose a bit and every one else gains a bit.
> A single individual with the authority to launch a full-scale invasion tomorrow. Compare that to elon musk or bill gates. Their purchasing influence is infinitesimally small compared to the same money utilized by the federal government.
Small handful of tobacco industry owners cooperate to kill 8 million people each year and they are allowed to do that. It's perfectly legal. Just 10 years of this and you have deathtoll of WW2. I think if a person in power suddenly on a whim decided to kill 8 million people a year there'd be some questions form the electorate.
And that's just a single small industry and only one small group of rich people.
> I can try. Have you ever played competitive sports against a kid? You start to feel bad after a while. Winning comes easy, but you're worried that the kid might hurt themselves in over-exertion. In truth, the kid literally cannot make a decision that will beat you. You're the best. You know this. It's not fair.
If online gaming is any indication, what you are describing is largely not the way the most vocal people feel. It's more generally, "let's actively hunt down little kids to ruthlessly defeat and record it while mocking them so we can make ourselves internet celebrities!" and "if I can't do it myself, at least I can watch this other guy mow down kids with no chance of competing and cheer him on!"
There are exceptions of real skill of course, but those exceptions are what the others are desperately trying to emulate by seeking out weaker opponents. Introspection is going to be a hard sell for those others.
