I think the point is that entrepreneurial endeavors are not a zero sum game. Politicians and people sometimes act like billionaires are hoarding a big slice of pie selfishly for themselves, but the reality is they made the pie bigger by adding value to the world. By the definition of how markets work they had to have added more value then they got compensated.
This is how it works with idealized new products. With highly competitive fields it is more zero sum, in that you take some pie from your competitors. But that's still good overall as it's adding value and making the market more efficient.
The only true zero sum game is the market for attention and why I despise social media companies. Everybody has a fixed amount of time, you can only grow that pie by adding more people.
If I provide enough value to buy a thousand lifetimes worth of food and sit in my castle with it while people outside my moat starve - am I not selfishly hoarding that food?
Yes. A lot of billionaires do choose to share, currently that's up to them. I think we can should make laws to put higher taxes on the rich, but in practice it's tough to do that well. Often they just move themselves or their money to get around that.
One has to balance harvesting eggs com the golden goose with not killing it or driving it away.
Taxing just billionaires specifically wouldn't do much as there aren't many of them. It would have to be a broader tax of some variety.
Taxing billionares I think means more like taxing the multimilionares. If you look at what democrats proposed was a raise in taxes for income of over 1M+ or something of the sorts.
Billionares could be taxed more as a penalty of parking their money in a safe fiscal heaven and it is very doable if a concerted effort is made.
How about the value destroyed? Im thinking of online retailers and the killing of the brick and mortar stores with lots of local economy and jobs murdered. Who decries those? The destitute become voiceless while the voice of the ones who got to the top becomes a strong unison and myths to riches are created so more people could be exploited.
I see what you’re trying to do there but that’s not what i was talking about. Some jobs become obsolete but we still need phisical stores. My neighborhood has very few stores open and that’s because of Amazon and friends. The value and the vitality of my neighborhood was largely destroyed
Those jobs are only seen as obsolete in hindsight, because we can all acknowledge that society would not be made better by bringing them back. This wasn't the case at the time when they were being forced out of business.
Certainly not all physical stores are unnecessary, but it may not be the case that society is better served by brick and mortar stores than Amazon (and similar), despite lost jobs and (temporarily) abandoned commercial space. It may just be progress moving forward.
This is how it works with idealized new products. With highly competitive fields it is more zero sum, in that you take some pie from your competitors. But that's still good overall as it's adding value and making the market more efficient.
The only true zero sum game is the market for attention and why I despise social media companies. Everybody has a fixed amount of time, you can only grow that pie by adding more people.