• Funkytom467@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Because we have limited resources, no riches can come to you without profiting of the work of others. If you really want to get your own view you can just look for yourself how rich people got their wealth and judge by yourself is that normal.

    I meant that for the extremely wealthy to be precise.

    Some moderately rich people are actually contributing positively. They are examples of what capitalism used to be, a system that wasn’t perfect but could still lead society in a positive direction, sometimes better than the alternatives.

    Redistribution of resources only works to some extent. Not to redistribute all the wealth in one go sure, but to balance the inequity continuously. For exemple taxe on income could be such a way. And like you said some rich people are ok with it and are philanthropic even.

    But the true goal of society would be to distribute riches correctly in the first place. So we don’t have to rely on philanthropy.

    And yeah i don’t think capitalism distribute it correctly. So it’s theirs in our capitalistic society, but it isn’t rightfully in my opinion.

    • HardNut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because we have limited resources, no riches can come to you without profiting from the work of others.

      Why is this true, and why is this a problem?

      look for yourself how rich people got their wealth and judge by yourself is that normal.

      In almost all cases I can think of, a rich person became rich because they provided a product or service that others saw value in, and this generally works for the betterment of civilization.

      Ford got rich off cars, the people benefitted by gaining access to transportation. JP Morgan got rich off trains, same thing, he provided a transportation service that people willfully used. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs gave us home computers, despite whatever your opinion is for each of them. Jeff Bezos got rich because he made the online marketplace so ridiculously easy to use, a service people enjoy and see value in.

      This is the principle reason they got rich in all of these cases: they sold something the people wanted, at a price they were willing to.

      Some moderately rich people are actually contributing positively.

      Can you describe what some of these moderately rich people are doing better than the mega rich people?

      But the true goal of society would be to distribute riches correctly in the first place.

      Why is this the goal of society? How do you determine it’s been distributed correctly?