The fact that mega wealthy people exist is GOOD for the rest of us. Agree or disagree?

[Anonymous]

I believe that what we as human beings have materially, is far greater under our system of liberty and capitalism with the mega rich, than any society could be in a more "fair" configuration.

The existence of the super rich, allows us all to have more than we would have if we were to force a redistribution of wealth.

Agree or disagree and why?

[Soteris]

I disagree. The existence of mega wealthy individuals are a cancer on society and the economy. Putting aside the fact that they are hogging resources and holding us back simply by their existence but also through their active malicious intent to retain power, humanity as a whole would have progressed further both in our industry, culture and in technology if they did not exist since we would have more resources to dedicate towards those pursuits.

Mega rich people are inherently regressive, in that they have a natural incentive to maintain the status quo where they are privileged. Anything that threatens to overturn their position in society becomes a threat to them which includes natural competition from for example Capitalism. New innovations and genius people with high merits will be suppressed so that they can't achieve their greatness and threaten the mega rich access to wealth and power.

[Asker]

That is a very interesting perspective. I humbly as for what source you have that you get these beliefs from?

I am not looking for a debate. I wish to consume whatever content you have consumed so I can evaluate such claims myself.

I'm assuming your beliefs might have some ideological roots from which I can learn more in depth about your perspective?

Thank you =D

[Soteris]

Well first of all, lets consider that we live in a changing world. That means that what happens today have consequences for what will happen in the future. If for example, being rich allows you more opportunities to gain even more wealth in the future then it becomes a self reinforcing loop that transfers more and more wealth from the poor onto the wealthy indefinitely until there simply is nothing more to take.

What happens once there is nothing more that the poor owns can be discussed at another time but the point is that as a system it can only continue to function for a set amount of time until it suffers a breakdown. That means for you to sustain a population of mega wealthy in your system indefinitely you need to find a way to bleed them of their profits so that they no longer continue to increase their percentage of the total national wealth. Otherwise you might have a situation that kind of looks like this:
https://wid.world/country/usa/

Secondly, lets consider for a fact that it does not necessarily matter how good or poorly an economy is doing when it comes to the ability of wealthy people to enrich themselves. Even poor countries such as certain middle eastern ones have incredibly wealthy elites and another example is that even when the economy struggled such as during Covid19 the wealthy in USA and elsewhere still grew their percentage of the wealth. In other words, there is not actually that much of an incentive for mega rich individuals to grow the economy to grow their own wealth.

[Soteris]

Then we get to how wealth often leads to corruption, or rather how rich people have an incentive to engage with corruption to increase their wealth or maintain their wealth:
www.hks.harvard.edu/.../inequality-and-corruption

Lastly, it is important to point out that even if mega rich would have a positive effect on the economy for the sake of argument, it would still be measured by the alternatives which historically has had a much better growth compared to even the most generous and optimistic estimations of what mega rich could hypothetically benefit the economy.

[Asker]

Do you have a more all encompassing media which can be consumed?

Such as a book that puts together the entire umbrella of things you are trying to convey?

It's not that I cannot understand, but that it is insufficient.

I want to go full ham. The links are OK but I need to see the whole thing top to bottom, reasoned out with philosophy if needed, perspectives, numbers, all that.

I think people who see the world the way you do think that a link to here or a link to there proves anything. There's so much more to incorporate into a fully nuanced perspective and I know that ultimate it rests upon a foundation of philosophical beliefs.

Whether it's you or anyone who reads this. I'd LOVE to have a nice fat book to read that spells it all out in great detail.

This comment and more like it are not sufficient for me to fully 100% challenge my beliefs.

I am searching for absolute reconciliation of opposing ideas.

I need to go deep.

If you dont know that's fine. Maybe I can take your words elsewhere such as reddit where I know many people will agree, to find the kind of in depth source/media I wish to consume.

[Soteris]

Quite frankly, I have no idea if there is a book that actually conforms with my personal beliefs. Those are beliefs I have assembled by myself from my own understanding of the evidence I have observed over my lifetime. It is not something that comes from a single convenient source I am afraid. Maybe if I read more economics books I would have a better idea of where to point you towards but I dont.

[Asker]

How do you know your beliefs are true if you have never truly questioned them?

[Soteris]

I question them all the time, I just have a different angle of interest from you. You see, I do not care about the economy or politics or the people involved in these things. My interest overlaps but I am interested in world building, AKA imagining how the economy or politics would work in a fantasy world. I am far more interested in how taxation would work in the lord of the rings or star wars than I am in how it works today in the real world.

However, the real world is still the basis for how other worlds would function so I still spend hours every day following real world events, politics and economics as well as read scientific papers and whatnot. I just dont care about the things beyond the facts such as famous economists or political scientists and whatnot. I read their findings but I dont care to remember them as people because that does not interest me.

[NamerOfStars]

Ultimately, yes- as it means it's possible to BECOME megawealthy. It also means there's at least SOME measure of distribution of power away from the government, which is a flat-out necessity.

The way things are set up now, though, there are some serious drawbacks.

[Kayla45]

I mean it’s good in some cases, like when they own companies, goods or services regular people can utilize. Like Amazon or Ebay for example.

[DryGermanGuy]

Disagree. Just read up on how Reagan's trickle-down economics were completely useless for the working class. Unsurprisingly, of course.

[Asker]

I believe that the existence of the mega rich allows us to have what we have. And if we modified the system such as to redistribute the money away from the rich, that would result in massive economic decline.

But I don't know how to truly get to the bottom of that debate you know?

I have seen the common arguments. I grew up on the opposite side, and very angry about capitalism.

But now I love capitalism and I think all the things I ever believed were basically lies.

I feel like I might have to legit go to college for economics or some shit to truly get to the bottom.

[Alex-Snow]

I disagree... it should be about all of us not one special group