>One man having $74 Billion Why is this shit still tolerated?

>>35049699
>gibs me datt !

>>35049709

Yeah, wealthy capitalists sure do like to be given the sweat of the proletariat's brow.

>guy has idea that benefits billions of people

Why shouldn't he have all that money. Remember, people GAVE this money to him. Yet the goverment says, no you have to give it back to them. Why? Just because he was born in the US and used the US to build his business? Even so, how much of that money is really entitled to the people?

>>35049709
I just think there should be some sort of cap or something and any money over it is subject to 95% tax. $74 billion is far too much money for one person.

File: 1448501452706.jpg (48KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1280x720px

>>35049718
>proIetariat

Because wealth is created. It isn't a limited resource that everybody has a right to, you stupid communist filth

>>35049720
>>35049759
Why are you guys sucking his dick so much? Do you hate yourselves or something?

>>35049773
I hate dumb lefty/pol/ posters who are so entitled as to believe that somebody's wealth should be taken away from them just because they amassed too much.

If you come up with an amazing idea and start a business that brings it into reality you'll be rich as well. Don't be salty just because you've done nothing useful with your life.

>>35049773
No i'm smart enough to understand how the system actually works and have created wealth before.

>>35049699
You're all fucking retards. Net worth =/= actual net fucking wealth you goddamn idiots.

>>35049798
Ok, what about shit like snapchat which is arguably of no real use to anyone. Do its founders deserve more $$$ than a surgeon that saves lives everyday?

>>35049834
Snapchat is a product. A lot of people want that product. The more people that use it, the more its worth becomes. I don't think you can compare a product to a surgeon. Surgeons deserve money, yes, but bitching about Amazon and Snapchat is meaningless. If you think surgeons deserve more money, complain to their employers. It's possible to Google average surgeon salaries and learn how much you can expect to earn before going to medical school. It's not like these people go to medical school to become surgeons, get employed, and then just turn around and start bitching about capitalism the second they realise they're not about to become billionaires.

>>35049834
Yes you absolute retard, there's more of a demand for Snapchat than for surgeons. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. The government doesn't allocate wealth based on any set of standards, it's called the market.

>>35049834
>i'm too dumb to make enough money to be satisfied, but i'm here to judge what product/service is useful or not to the world

fuck off cunt. most billionaires put the money back into the system and you should be more concerned with the projects that fail and con artists than successful entrepreneurs. laws can change here and there but drawing a line where people aren't allowed to earn any more has the same reasoning as telling people exactly how they should live/work/support the country etc. and it never works.

>>35049720

>Why shouldn't he have all that money.

From a macroeconomic perspective, because literally no one can efficiently redistribute their wealth (be it through investment, charitable projects, etc.) in a manner that does a better job than taxation and public funding. The pooling of capital also has a quirk in that the more you have, the faster it grows. If you think of GDP as a pie, growth makes the pie bigger, and everyone should get a share of that, but when you have extremely high levels of capital, your % of the pie increases more than any one elses, meaning eventually the owners of capital receive all of the proceeds of growth in an economy

From a social perspective, this adversely effects the economies of countries and at worse, stifles others who also have good ideas, creating stagnation. So, someone has a good idea that makes a lot of money, does that mean they should be given more influence and power over our society than 99.99% of the rest of the country? Just because you've got a successful cheeseburger franchise or online store, should you wield enough money to force monopolies onto markets, lobby governments and intervene in the lives of others?

Rewarding innovation is good, and always good - but rewarding it to the point where these people become rich beyond measure while we have starvation, poverty and crime is absurd.

>>35049981
>So, someone has a good idea that makes a lot of money, does that mean they should be given more influence and power over our society than 99.99% of the rest of the country? Just because you've got a successful cheeseburger franchise or online store, should you wield enough money to force monopolies onto markets, lobby governments and intervene in the lives of others?
This isn't a problem with how much wealth somebody has, though. It's a problem with a country allowing them to do this. If I were a multi-billionaire and I didn't do any of this, am I somehow still deplorable?

>Rewarding innovation is good, and always good - but rewarding it to the point where these people become rich beyond measure while we have starvation, poverty and crime is absurd.
You're complaining about the people receiving the money, not the people giving it to them. Maybe try to convince people to donate a few cents to charity instead of paying for another years' worth of WhatsApp.

It's simple cause and effect

He created amazon, so he is responsible for amazon, including the responsibility to choose what happens to amazon, thus he is responsible for the profit amazon accrues. (You) are not responsible for creating amazon thus you have no claim to any earnings of amazon.

>>35049981
>no one can figure out how to spend money better than local/federal government analysts who typically have no personal frame of reference for what they are funding and have no incentive for doing a good job

what is wrong with you?

also,

taxes are already a thing you fucking idiot.

File: kirino smug.png (306KB, 593x540px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 593x540px

Why are communists so covetous? The curve of Quality of live vs wealth stops growing pretty steeply after you make it past the "middle-upper class" denomination. A person with making 150k/yr (perfectly doable for a small entrepreneur or a successful professional) has practically the same quality of life than a billionaire. All these redistributionalist mentalities are only fueled by jealousy and desire of the unearned.

>>35050056
The fundamental thinking of communists is that wealth is, or can be, a resource. They're literally too stupid to recognize basic economic principles and how they function in society.

>>35049834
>deserve
It's not about "deserve" you fucking retard. Grow a fucking brain.

File: 143254637875664.jpg (52KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x600px

>>35050056
>A person with making 150k/yr (perfectly doable for a small entrepreneur or a successful professional) has practically the same quality of life than a billionaire

>>35050021

>This isn't a problem with how much wealth somebody has, though. It's a problem with a country allowing them to do this. If I were a multi-billionaire and I didn't do any of this, am I somehow still deplorable?

Here's a simple way of thinking about it: Imagine bank accounts, asset port folios, whatever, had gravity. No matter what you do, however you spend your money, your combined assets will affect others. You may not be deplorable, but you aren't inert either.


>You're complaining about the people receiving the money, not the people giving it to them. Maybe try to convince people to donate a few cents to charity instead of paying for another years' worth of WhatsApp.

No, I'm arguing that there's no sense in trying to argue that the world is a better place because an individual has more money than they can efficiently exploit. This is a structural problem with modern capitalism. Comprehensive systems of corporate taxation can and should regulate these issues to allow for economic redress, what we've ended up with is a system of extreme tax evasion and exploitation of the middle and working class who bear an extortionate brunt of taxes for the benefit of corporations.

>>35049699
Hey look, not /lit/! Point at it and laugh!

>>35049981
>social perspective
from a retard perspective actually. corporate greed/influence isn't one person normally, and it isn't anywhere near the excitement you make it out to be. people who maliciously attack an industry or the economy don't get to live free for very long. beyond that, whether it's company x or government body y, people make stupid as fuck decisions outside of their scope of expertise, and some decisions that look bad to you are actually better for the economy. blanket statements like this shit as justification for taking away somebody's money over some limit are normally used to undercut poor people, who can amass a far greater sum for govt to exploit. the govt is still people, money will still change hands, and people will always continue to create and build (and destroy). unless you have a better argument than "because social perspective" for why one person and not the other deserves the money that someone earns, then go be poor somewhere else.

Who here considering /anarchomutualism/
It seems like a good system, private property is allowed, yet exploitation and harm to others isn't
Any arguments against this would be appreciated, I want to refine this in the best way possible

>>35049699
>I don't achieve anything and others should'nt have lots of money because it makes me envy, I can't fulfill my dream and they should'nt either.

Get off you fucking loser

>>35049867
This
Also I'm pretty certain surgeons don't become surgeons for money. Also if they do want money they can just come up with something as well, you don't need a PHD for that

>>35050181
>Any arguments against this would be appreciated
who would enforce private property laws?

>>35050261
Thats a very good point friend, and one of the big problems in this system which I want to find a solution to.
Who will enforce property laws? Or any laws? Well, people have morals, so why not a collectivist police force that functions under a constitution that enforces personal liberty and wellbeing of all.

>>35050261
>inb4 everyone would just agree to be peaceful and the community would enforce it

Because he's got brains and not bronze?

>>35050336
Then it's not anarchism retard.

>>35049699
Cause he earned it? What you suggesting we do, take peoples money away from them above a certain limit?
Plus Amazon is fucking awesome, literally anything you could imagine at your door the next day (or sooner) at a very fair price.
You wouldn't be talking shit if you were worth more than a crumpled twenty and a sweaty handjob.

>>35049735
>one person
It's an enormous company, he doesn't have that 70 bil stuffed under his matress, that's just what the largest internet retailer ever is worth.

Who cares? We are robots.

Cause he made a company that is worth 74 billion

Also isn't Gates the richest man in the world? I thought he was only worth 60 bil

I'm so fucking sick of communists. Everywhere I fucking go at uni I have to deal with the retards. How hard is it to understand that in a system where goods are owned "publicly", A GOVERNMENT STILL HAS TO EXIST AND IT HAS COMPLETE FUCKING CONTROL OVER YOU? Why would you not want to be free?

>>35049699
>Why is this shit still tolerated?
Why shouldn't it? He created a popular platform that provides people with the good they are willing to buy. People are giving their money to him by their own free will, leftist retard. Go back to /leftypol/.

>>35050520

Since 2008 the billionaires all had their wealth multiply by a ridiculous factor.

Gates is currently worth something like $85 billion. He didn't really do anything at all. He held stock and the stock grew a whole lot during these last 9 years.

Wish my savings grew by the same amount.

>>35049981
>Rewarding innovation is good, and always good - but rewarding it to the point where these people become rich beyond measure while we have starvation, poverty and crime is absurd.
We have that because the state is inneficient and keeps the market from being free.

>>35049699
>Implying he is not a CIA Agent and that capitalism is not a rigged game.

>>35049699
He made that money

I'd rather have hair than money

>>35049699
Funny how /leftypol/ retards are coming here because they get absolutely BTFO on /pol/ but they are still being BTFO here. Funny cucks.

>>35050036
This guy fucking gets it. He made a company and business plan from the ground up and dominated. Why should he be punished for being good?
Hell if bill gates has done more shady shit then this guy but I don't see OP bitching about him.

Why because he gives billions he doesn't need away so the when the poor rise up they won't eat him?

>>35050056
>just because it said so in a graph, it must be true for everyone!

>>35050421
Agree, if OP wants to hate on someone he should have picked a banker or investor, sure they work for their money but they don't provide anything but shifting wealth upwards.

>>35050092
He is not lying, unless your view of improved lifestyle is constant travelling (which is really tiresome), showering yourself in chink products and buying all of the mainstream clothings (which changes every 3 months or so). If you are a power seeking cunt then sure, all those billions are necessary and will find an use.

It's really funny how everyone stops being NEETs as soon as someone criticises shark cuckitalism. Just fyi, Amazon is notorious for tax avoidance

>>35050766
And that's great. The government shouldn't be taxing business.

>>35050785

Government taxes practically all monetary transactions. If your business doesn't transact money, then you won't get taxed, otherwise tough titties.

File: 20acda36912006b97335f433533bf1ec34406bd64dbbe468dd5e4459bf99497e_1 (2).jpg (67KB, 317x318px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 317x318px

Suck it keyboard Bolsheviks

>>35050766
That is why retailers hate them.

>>35050841
It shouldn't tax most transitions. And if other companies are doing worse than Amazon because of their avoidance, it's the government's fault.

>>35050766
Funny how everyone suddenly becomes the proletariat when billionaires come up, but are classiest as fuck when actual lumpenproles come up.

>b-but he worked hard to get rich

Lol
Here's how most millionaires got rich

>Be friends with someone in government
>Ask him to hire your company at 10x the market price
>Split the difference 50/50

>>35049699
I would normally hate somebody with almost 100 billion dollars to himself, but Bezos is my livelihood as I work for a branch of his company.

Also my brother tries to shittalk Amazon as if it exploits investors like Snapchat, Uber, and Facebook.

The reality is that thousands of people get to work for the most efficient retailer in the world and earn a decent living doing so. Even without Amazon's programs, the company seems to have labor rights and social mobility in its future vision. If you work for Amazon they'll actually pay for you to go to college and earn career skills to move on to a better job.

t. I am not a shill

>>35050926
Not relevant to /r9k/, but good on you for trying I guess

>>35049699
Because if there was no motivation to get rich, I wouldn't be able to get every single fucking thing I need in 2 days from a website that I can use on my toilet. You think Jeff Bezos just decided one day to be super rich? No, he had role models like Bill and Warren to look up to.

These guys need to be outstandingly rich, so that people aspire to be them. Even if 99.99% of those people FAIL, they'll be putting new ideas into the world in the process. And we all benefit from that innovation and job creation.

Or, or.. I have an idea..

Guise, listen.. This will totally work dude..

We can live in a communist utopia where we can maybe stand in line for 4 hours to maybe get what may have been a shitty copy of a two-generations old game console from our nearest (230 hectares away) State Sponsored Electronics and Fish Store at a cost of only 3 months wages!

It's genius, I tells ya!

>>35051010
if it turns out anything like David/Charles Koch, Bezos will start spending money on his politics, which are extremely progressive

since there is already so much globalist and conservative lobbying going on, I see a true progressive getting involved as a good thing.

>DUDE LET'S PAY THE JANITOR AS MUCH AS THE NEUROSURGEON WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG LMAO
commies are so fucking stupid, look at the fucking starvation and gulags and shit, it doesn't fucking work you morons.

The most important aspect to understand in this case isn't the method of how the founder amassed such a fortune but what are the implications of having such a strong concentration of capital in one being.

Tax rates, (which Amazon manages to work around since its a shell company) are effective since they're an automatic economic stabiliser but they cannot undo massive capital concentration like in this case.

The issue with having such a massive amount of capital here is that they end up having vast amounts of power in the economy. Since they can throw their financial power around to a similar extent like banks, they can be a deciding factor for start ups who seek capital.

So you've got to ask yourself: Does this man have too much money?

>>35051259
>The issue with having such a massive amount of capital here is that they end up having vast amounts of power in the economy. Since they can throw their financial power around to a similar extent like banks, they can be a deciding factor for start ups who seek capital.
And what's bad about having economical power?

>>35049699
Amazon reinvests nearly all of its profits. That 74b is just basically the size of a money hose.

>>35051193
I know, janitors should do it for free

>>35051310
Because it can lead to a possible situation in which conflicts of interest can override clear rational thought.

It can lead to Amazon being able to undercut the market prices when new entrants try to enter the market and thus attacking Amazon's monopoly.

>>35049699
>posts this shit on /pol/
>gets BTFO on /pol/
>takes the same shit to /r9k/
>gets BTFO on /r9k/

Fuck off faggot, what next /biz/ lol?

>>35049699
because he worked for it faggot get a job fucking neetfag commie

>>35051370
>It can lead to Amazon being able to undercut the market prices when new entrants try to enter the market and thus attacking Amazon's monopoly.
And what's bad about that if it will only lower the prices for the general consumer?

>>35051370
>clear rational thought
How are you defining "rational thought" here?

>>35050356
Anarchism is not being free from rules, but unjust rulers and exploitation
Show yourself out

>>35050344
Thats how the current system of exploitation and materialism continues, why is it so unnatural for us to enforce liberty

Faggots like OP are always the ones who never worked a day in their lives

Commies are such scum

File: red menace.jpg (78KB, 800x705px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x705px

>>35049699

Le net worth

>Not realizing that that net worth cannot be liquidized and is largely the theoretical value of assets, which literally cannot be liquidated to feed to the leproletariat (*tips hat) because then there wouldn't BE any industry.
>Not realizing that pretty much every company is now a PLC and that, therefore, profits go to shareholders, which are largely retirement funds from people in ordinary jobs. I.e. the proletariat ALREADY owns the company

bubtubtubtubtubtbbbut bub bub bu he's got so much in the bank!

>what is le banking
>What is holding deposits so loans can be made?
>I le wonder if this is le better way of running banks than promising to bail them out when they fail with public money thus encouraging risky investment
>le fanny mae and freddy mac face


Arguments can be made that INDIVIDUAL - bank held - wealth that an indivdual does not plan to re-invest in education, health, or housing for himself or his family should be taxed when it exceeds a certain reserve should be taxed on a sliding scale (sloping upward quite quickly)...but fucking hell....

Commies are so fucking thick that they think if someone is the CEO of a company that has some huge net worth then that means that they're sitting in an office made of gold bars smoking stogies made out of $50 dollar bills. It's just such fucking horeshit.

I hate to break it to any comm-fags in here but almost all the really major companies are basically PUBLICALLY OWNED already. They just aren't government owned. Shareholders own them and practically everybody who's ever kicked into a pension owns those shares whether they know it or not. Do you think if the gubbermint teek over disneyski and make you come in two days a week to do some shitty animation like it was a fucking collective farm then its going to produce better products or cheaper ones?

>>35050235
>Also I'm pretty certain surgeons don't become surgeons for money
Confirmed for having never met a surgeon

>>35050931
>Here's how most millionaires got rich
People actually, unironically believe this.

>creator of amazon
uh, yes, take all my money please.
he deserves it, Amazon is amazing.

>creator of Mcdonalds
this needs to be dismantled. they market slop and microwave food like it's the best thing ever, it's crazy.
the only reason they exist is because they spend millions on marketing and advertising.

>>35050504
Amazon is worth far more than $74 billion.

Want proof?

http://www.google.com/finance?cid=660463

See the market cap? Amazon is worth over 400 billion.

You know nothing yet you comment anyway. That $74 billion is his own personal wealth, and yes it is ridicolous, guys like this should be getting taxed 90%, he would still be incredibly rich, and so would his family for potentially infinite future generations until the collapse of civilization.

>But he earned it!
He may have earned some of it, but not $76 billion.

>>35052848
Who did earn it then? It's literally his creation that he built from the ground up. Nobody else put work into this company that they weren't compensated for.

File: 1480906713886.jpg (67KB, 542x537px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 542x537px

>>35052848
Clearly he earned all of it.
Money doesn't just appear from nothing y'know?

>>35049735
>$74 billion is far too much money for one person.

Are 12 or stupid?

Become a criminal, the wagecuck is a sucker.

>>35052890
Quantitative easing

>>35052876
>>35052890
People paying you doesn't mean you earn jack shit. That's like saying people on welfare earned their money.

>>35049834
Their customers think they do.

And the founder of Snapchat has more customers than a single of the many surgeons on this planet, because he's the only one offering Snapchat.

There's many, many surgeons offering surgery and not everyone is constantly in need of it.

But when they are, it is expensive.

The reason it happens is simple, really. Most people on this planet lack significant levels of empathy. Everyone knows that mass poverty and starvation is going on. There's no difference between this guy having 74 billion in his bank account in a world like this, and sitting in a king's gold castle full of luxuries and food while directly outside it is a crowd of people suffering and dying from lack of basic necessities.

>>35052936
They aren't paid

They're stolen for by surrogate

Or I suppose you could say "paid with money stolen at gunpoint"

>inb4 ancap memes

I actually think food stamps are acceptable but I also think there should be a market for a person's genetic value, which would evaluate whether society should take care of them or let them die

>>35052936
I'm honestly not sure what your point is. He created something that he earned 74 billion dollars from. If his share of the company he created is worth that much, how did he not earn that money?

>>35052876
>>35052890
Almost all of that money was earned by investing in stocks, not compensation for Amazon.

He did not get that rich from Amazon you fucking retards, he got rich from Amazon, then his stock portfolio took him to $74 billion. I don't think you're able to actually understand how much money $74 billion is.

Rich people get to "extremely rich" without having to do any work at all, they just form a stock portfolio, could literally do nothing but sleep or sit in bed, and by the end of the year have made several millions or billions.

Imagine having 74B in your bank account, and not using it literally provide millions of people with great quality of life improvements.

>>35052973
Because "earning" doesn't mean getting whatever you get. It's getting in proportion what you work for. He may be receiving billions of dollars, but he's not putting in $74 billion worth of work. Just because he's receiving it doesn't mean he's earning it.

GUYS! I JUST WON THE LOTTERY! I EARNED THAT MONEY AND SHOULDN'T BE TAXED A DIME! JUST THINK OF ALL THE LOTTERY WORKERS I HELPED EMPLOY!

The seperation of powers keeps the government at bay, at least partially, antitrust laws should be used to keep corporate or otherwise individual monopoly, instead we in the us seem completely cool with consolidated power as long as its not the government.

>>35053040
Okay, but he's more entitled to that 74 billion dollars than anybody else is. So whether he "earned" it or not, he created something that amassed that much capital.

>>35049699
>Why is this shit still tolerated?

Because people have been fed propaganda to believe that somehow Bezos created all that himself and somehow managed to do without the rest of society

>>35049699

What happened with all those money when billionaires die someday?

They build tombstones of pure gold or what?

>>35053107
I feel bad for you if you're not aware of the societal/cultural concept of inheritance and lineage.

>>35053088
Nobody is entitled to anything. I believe he should be taxed higher because I believe in empathy towards those who aren't as lucky.

He provides a service used by millions of people. I have and will always hate bankers and their sort but this is an example of a man running a very useful business, not manipulating money.

>>35052936
>People paying you doesn't mean you earn jack shit.

Yes it does. That is quite literally what it mean

These anons actually think that Bezos has a bank account with $75B in it.

>>35049735
>>35049699

>>35053137
calm down, most of the board is 12 year olds and by that i mean people who are barely 20 years old.

>>35053022
>without having to do any work at all
I'm sorry did we miss the part where he created one of the most valuable companies in the world?

Who cares what he did with his amazon money? I dont know why you're complaining that he invested in stocks, as majority of working people do. Do you want to abolish investment? or just for wealthy people?

>>35053147
And I dont believe that, so now what? You shouldnt have the right to take my money, or his, or anybody else's, because of your arbitrary definition of "too much"

>Still buying from Amazon
https://stallman.org/amazon.html

File: 1471186018252.png (595KB, 764x643px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 764x643px

>we live in a society that encourages financial success but shames people who find substantial financial success

>>35049699
You see here's the issue. If there is, essentially, a maximum wage then we have 4 possibilities
1) People don't work as hard when they approach it since they know there is a sharp drop in marginal benefit.
2) Money will leave the country under "investments" and whatnot.
3) CEOs and execs will get paid with non liquid assets e.g. "Thanks for your hard work Mr. CEO. Enjoy living in this company beschfront property indefinitely."
4) this is most likely, a combination of the 3.

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to economics, but it does seem like we have an issue where these assholes make billions while most people see no wage growth or even lose money to inflation. I blame globalist markets first though. Why pay workers $10/hr when you can get similar quality work for $0.10/hr?

>>35052803
>gibs me dat!
Okay buddy.

>>35049699
>Why is this shit still tolerated?
Why do you care? It's not like the money would be going to you, me or anyone else. It would stay inside Amazon, maybe within a fund.

>>35053161
>>35053168
Please stop acting like all the money is made from Amazon.

Only a small portion of that money was made from Amazon.

Almost all of that money is returns from stock investments, which he did not have to do anything for.

$74 billion is not "rich". Let me tell you that a billion dollars is 1000 million.

You think someone with a few million is rich, and they are rich. Someone with 74,000 million dollars is not just "rich", that is far beyond rich, an individual human shouldn't be allowed to have that much money.

File: shake_love.jpg (295KB, 621x853px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 621x853px

>>35049699

Richfags happen to be the most empathetic people of earth if you want to go that route, and tend to be the ones most likely to WORK or build companies in his garages.

Meanwhile middle classes are emotional roller coasters that prefer the easy life of zero motivation but now claim "universal income" because they are lazy fuck that dont like build companies or just "Work" this why companies are killing the parasite middle class with robots.

>>35053247
Again, I'll ask:
What is your problem with stock market investments? Majority of working people invest in the stock market. How do you think people fund their retirements? Those people """Dont do anything for it"""" either, except risk their money. Are you against investment, or just investment for rich people?

>>35053247
It's spooky desu. The richest people today are probably richer than the richest kings in history.

>>35053287
>this why companies are killing the parasite middle class with robots.

This did/will happen regardless.

Even if you got rid of the minimum wage and everyone had stellar work ethic, they would still be replaced with robots.

>>35053313
>they would still be replaced with robots.
You are making it too easy. Of course it would be nice to delete employment costs, but even the most greedy businessman is aware that no employment means no money to spend and no business being made.

>>35053208
>>35053177
>because of your arbitrary definition of "too much"

Not that guy, but be honest, you don't really "need" more than 1 billion dollars just to know you're an success and live comfortably. Say if he just have 1 billion. He can still pass it down to the next of kin, he can still invest in it, and he's still in luxury. Why should a person be paid tens of billions of dollars? Sure he "earned" it , but is it ethical for a person's net worth to be THAT much?

>>35053348

>but even the most greedy businessman is aware that no employment means no money to spend and no business being made.

Businessmen dont give a shit if the average people dont have money, they can sell products to the 1% richest.

>>35053374
Would it be ethical to take away the earnings of a man simply based on the fact that he already has money? Where do we even draw the line? Besides, nobody is being paid billions of dollars.

>>35053392
>they can sell products to the 1% richest.
No, they can't. If you target the highest one percent, you have to deliver luxury class items and you can't make those for cheap. It just doesn't add up at all.

>>35053292
Nothing, I have $30,000 worth of stocks.

You know what that gets me? I'm really fortunate if I make a 20% return in one year, which would be $6000.

Now let's see what happens when a very rich man makes even worse stock choices than me, and makes a 15% return. Let's say he had a 100 million dollar stock portfolio, a 15% return would be 15,000,000 (15 million dollars).

He made even worse choices than me, yet he gets $15,000,000 while I get $6000.

With the stock market the more money you can invest, the more money you make. The rich get even richer by doing this, while people with only small amounts of money to invest like $50,000 would have to make extremely lucky stock picks to ever turn that into a few million.

>>35053374
>you don't really "need" more than 1 billion dollars
Again, that's completely arbitrary. Yeah, he can do all those things, but just because he doesn't "need" more than that, why cant he have it?

We can take that to the logical extreme and say that you dont "need" your computer or internet, or food that isnt bread and water and you could still be relatively comfortable and raise your children.

I'm not trying to compare Jeff Bezos only having a billion dollars with living on bread and water (Jeff Bezos is a fucking cunt btw), but I'm just saying that the cutoff is completely arbitrary. If he wants to sleep on a solid diamond bed with a harem of models, fuck it, that's his choice to make because it's his money.

>>35049735
His assets are worth that much. No one is really wealthy enough to buy it without his net going down. He's probably worth around 10B in all reality.

>>35053348
That is why they will eventually agree to fund a Universal Basic Income.

So the general populace can have money to buy consumer goods.

>>35053441
Invest more then

>>35053441
If they can invest that much money, can put 100,000,000 USD into the economy, they should be able to get 15,000,000 USD a year out of it. It's not even actual money, it's still invested into the company.

>>35049834
They can be worth even more if they started a practice and capatalized on their knowledge. Be creative you commie drone :^)

>>35053441
Yeah I understand how percentages work. I just dont understand what your solution is? Do you not want him to not be allowed to invest?

Or just take it from him because you think he has too much?

File: do;;.jpg (6KB, 188x248px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 188x248px

>>35049759
ur a a nbunghol.e

>>35053463
That also does not make sense. Basic income would devalue money, especially if you just hand it out to everyone. If your basic expenses are 2,000 USD a month right now and the goverment gives you 2,000 more for reason, the expenses would just rise to 4,000 USD a month because the extra expenses wouldn't hurt you.

so has anyone figured out what teenagers are supposed to do about money when robots phase out the entire entry sector?

seems like we're just looking at a future slavery, future squalor, where basic people don't have access to income at all early on.

>>35053472
Yes why didn't I think of that.

Now I just have to win the lottery big time, or some other equally unlikely scenario.

>>35053505
If robots are the future, you are to be involved in the robotics sector.

>>35053492
Tax him 90%.

If he leaves the country, ban him from ever re-entering or doing business here again.

>>35053504
Inflation wouldn't rise that drastically overnight.

Yes inflation would rise at a steady rate, it's not a concern. Everything will adjust for inflation along with it.

Inflation is actually good for you if you're in debt by the way.

>>35053530
Why though? Why does he have to pay more?

And for the record, if I had that much money and the country wanted to take 90% of it, or ban me forever... I would be on a (private) flight out of here so fast it would make your head spin

>>35053521
wow, so much for the last 3,000 years of arts.

>>35049834
You brain dead fuck! If you have to pay billions to a surgeons nobody will be able to afford a medical bill made by that surgeon.

>>35053560
I have no idea what connections you are making there.

>>35053411
>Would it be ethical to take away the earnings of a man simply based on the fact that he already has money?

There are people that have to go bankrupt or sell their homes because the cost of living is too much for them. I find that way more unethical than rich people being taxed.

>>35053446
>If he wants to sleep on a solid diamond bed with a harem of models, fuck it, that's his choice to make because it's his money.

That one of the problem with rich people, they don't know what the fuck they want to do with their money. What's solid diamond bed going to do for you besides indulge yourself? Money should be going to places where its actually useful. I guess it's why most rich people want to be philanthropists like Bill Gates, but people like him are just doing for themselves. Most rich people don't really care about the average or poor people.

> say that you dont "need" your computer or internet

You actually kind of do. We're almost at a point where soon well have internet lodged into our brains

>>35049773
Americans are eternally classcucked.

>>35053558
>Why does he have to pay more?

Because he has such an immense amount money. I don't think you're smart enough to actually comprehend how much $74 billion is. Someone with 10 million dollars is nothing compared to him, yet you think of someone with 10 million as rich.

See this for an explanation: >>35053247

Even if they taxed you 90% you would still be extremely rich.

Not many people who were born and raised in the US would want to be banned for life from the US, or ever doing business with the US, even very wealthy people.

>>35053620
>There are people that have to go bankrupt or sell their homes because the cost of living is too much for them. I find that way more unethical than rich people being taxed.
Maybe buying yourself a house you can't afford on the salary you make is a stupid move. You can't outsource the faults of everyone onto more successful people.

>>35053609
i know. most sociopathic business men and economics majors won't be able to make the connection on why arts and humanities are important to, well, humans.

>>35053530
Just because he made most of his money in stocks? or because he has too much?

If its the first one...
How do you feel about those people who live super frugally and then retire at age 35? Like they make 100K a year, save and invest 60K a year, work their way up to a million dollars and then just live on their investment income... Should we tax them 90%?
Or a doctor who makes 300K? say he invests 100K a year throughout his 40 year career. By the end of that career, his stock portfolio is going to be worth millions, majority of which came from interest and he "did nothing to earn it."

If you want to tax him so highly because he "has too much," where do you draw the line? Why do you get to decide that line?

>>35053620
>Money should be going to places where its actually useful
That's for him to decide. If he gets pleasure or enjoyment out of it, then he should be able to. Okay, suppose you "need" a computer and internet. What other hobbies do you have? Vidya? Well, you dont actually "need those." That money should be going somewhere useful. What's vidya going to do for you besides indulge yourself?

This applies to any hobby or thing you spend money on that isnt bread, water, shelter.

>>35053620
>There are people that have to go bankrupt or sell their homes because the cost of living is too much for them. I find that way more unethical than rich people being taxed.
That's only because the government regulates the economy generating poverty.

>>35053670
I hope you are not refering to arts and humanities as academical degrees.

>>35053658
>Because he has such an immense amount money.
Still, no one is keeping other people from generating their own wealth besides government.

>>35053696
read my words, autist. ARTS and HUMANITIES, in every single form, doesn't matter, which eventually stretches into education, yes.

>>35053706
>Still, no one is keeping other people from generating their own wealth besides government.
Except the material conditions under which people live? If you are forced into labor because of your class there is no way in hell you will ever generate enough capital to become part of the ruling class -- you will be able to barely sustain yourself.

>>35053658
You're telling me that if you had the choice between having 10% of your net worth and living here, or your full net worth and living anywhere else in the world, you would still live here? Man i'm a patriot, but holy shit there's no way i would stay here. That's literal robbery.

And who care's if hes extremely rich? Where are you drawing this cutoff? Athletes think billionaires are extremely rich. Doctors and lawyers think athletes are extremely rich. Tradesmen think doctors are extremely rich. Poor people think tradesmen are extremely rich.

>>35053620
>Money should be going to places where its actually useful.
Who are you or leftism to decide where money is useful? The people that bought his products and services decided that they were useful for them. Why do you leftists are so arrogant to think that you know what's best for people rather than themselves only?

>>35053722
Both of these fields are optional. Arts are just a form of higher culture and form by themselves, either for admiring to current system or to criticize it. As for humanities, if I hear one more guy talking about the inequality of races or sexes and toxic masculinity, I'm going to break.

>>35053752
>Where are you drawing this cutoff?
At the point where a person extracts profits from the surplus value of the proletariat's labor force.

>>35053749
>If you are forced into labor because of your class there is no way in hell you will ever generate enough capital to become part of the ruling class
Much people crossed the poverty line into wealth.

>>35053685
No I didn't say you should tax all returns from stock investments at 90% you fucking retard.

Even if you make a couple million a year you shouldn't be getting taxed 90%.

>If you want to tax him so highly because he "has too much," where do you draw the line?

When you have a 1 billion net valuation and make more than 10 million a year.

File: 1463851314640.jpg (200KB, 563x600px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 563x600px

>>35053764
>he thinks arts and humanities is a field

oh my god....... the autism..

>>35053773
>Much people crossed the poverty line into wealth.
Doing so takes a lot of sweat, blood and spit. Most people don't even want to sweat anymore, let along bleed for success.

>>35053773
many* lol. fuck my stupid english.

Still, it is not anyone's responsibility to care for the poor even if you became rich starting poor yourself. That's only on you to decide and having anyone doing it for yourself is the same as acting against freedom.

>>35053754
Leftists are so arrogant because they observe the material conditions and inherent contradictions of the capitalist system and rightfully want to act on it. To imply that a person who grows up in the capitalist system and is forced to act within its boundaries is also actively in endorsement of the choices they have to make is quite ignorant -- to give you an obvious example, it would be like justifying feudalism in saying the peasant is growing crop and giving parts of his earnings to his landlord out of free will, after all he could go anywhere else he wanted to, right?

>>35053797
Yeah, yeah, autism this, autism that. If you have nothing of value to say, better shut your mouth, you save your life at some point.

>>35053778
Why is that the line? 1 billion is still absurd. "its 1000 millions!!!!!"

There are people that think a couple million dollars is insane. Nobody needs more than that anyway.

>>35053798
>Doing so takes a lot of sweat, blood and spit

It takes none of those. You will never go from poor to rich through physical labor.

Going from poor to rich takes a lot of luck, and not much else.

>>35053820
i had a valuable question to ask and you answered with, "oh well if robots are the future, THEN YOU WILL BE STUDYING ROBOTICS"
you removed choice and then you said subjects are optional, you contradicted yourself, so which it, will we have a choice or won't we?

i'm calling you autistic for a reason, because you aren't using reason.

>>35053827
You should be glad I'm setting the bar for the 90% tax bracket so high, I know how you love sucking rich cock.

>>35053811
>inherent contradictions of the capitalist system
communism is the true contradiction, it's a stupid utopia.

>after all he could go anywhere else he wanted to, right?
Ddefinetly. You're not entitled to anyone's money. You're not entitled to anything just because you're born.

>>35053773
Very few, social mobility is extremely limited and in the US in particular has been declining more and more ever since the rise of neoliberalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States

Read Bordeaux for an understanding of why.

>>35053827
That's the problem. As someone from a low-wealth community and they'd say that anyone making six figures a year is beyond reasonable. Here you have people saying the same about one million or one billion. There will always be people who'll feel left out.

>>35053862
Doesn't matter. Once the economy is free from the hands of the state poverty will decline and "social mobility" doesn't mean a thing if products and services are affordable for the majority of the population through market's competition.

>>35053022
his net worth is entirely from amazon. He owns 18% of the company.

Amazon has a market cap of 414 billion x 0.18 =74.5 billion

>>35053857
Says the guy who wants to give 90% of someone else's money to welfare

>>35053859
Communism is utopia, even Marx said so, its complete realization is impossible, just like the complete realization of capitalism. The aim is to continuously work towards it, or rather it is the inevitable course history will take.

>Ddefinetly. You're not entitled to anyone's money. You're not entitled to anything just because you're born.
If nobody is entitled to anything surely you won't have a problem with the proletariat rising up and killing all the capitalists then. Good we cleared that up.

>>35053846
It's the most simply form of supply and demand. If you want to bet all of your dimes on being a cashier feel free to do so, but once your feared robotic revolution will hit you'll be one of those out of employment with no idea how that happend.

>>35053896
The economy will never be free from the hands of the state, since the state as an institution is a consequence of the capitalist system. Anarcho-crapitalists truly are the most retarded political breed out there, even worse than anarcho-tribalists.

>>35053901
>If nobody is entitled to anything
Nobody is entitled to others' properties. That includes the physical self. Are you against freedom?

>>35053901
>I take money, time and ideas.
>I make a form of work out of it.
>I have so much work that I can employ people.
>I employ enough people for me to manage these people.
>Somehow I'm now open to be killed because reasons.

>>35049699

You're right anon. This shouldn't be tolerated. These are the same people who look for any way possible to get out of paying taxes through loopholes and using their access to financial professionals while also obsessively profiteering to the benefit of drones, AI and shareholders but to the detriment of everyone else. When the shit hits the fan, they're the first people going to the gallows.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/

>>35053903
we'll be dead by then, but nice rant you had with yourself there.
(my question was never actually addressed, lol)

>>35053935
>state as an institution is a consequence of the capitalist system.
It isn't. It is a consequence of military power.
>Anarcho-crapitalists truly are the most retarded political breed out there, even worse than anarcho-tribalists.
Are you retarded? I didn't imply the non-existence of a state as a regulator of social matters but a state that is separated from the market.

>>35053955
You employ people and extract surplus value from their labor. Which, in simple terms, means you are stealing from then.

>>35053961
>These are the same people who look for any way possible to get out of paying taxes through loopholes
And they are right. The government shouldn't be directly taxing businesses.

>>35053898
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/101615/what-jeff-bezoss-portfolio-looks.asp

Now I know his entire net worth and portfolio isn't in Amazon stock. He owns many stocks and has real-estate investments.

Even if he owns Amazon stock, the money he makes from that is just another return from stock investment that he didn't have to do anything for.

>>35053660
>Maybe buying yourself a house you can't afford on the salary you make is a stupid move.

But Mortgages and utility bills will go up everytime.

>You can't outsource the faults of everyone onto more successful people.

You kinda can

>That money should be going somewhere useful. What's vidya going to do for you besides indulge yourself?

Well, for me as an example, Im not being overpayed and I don't lavish myself with so many material things. I only have TV, Vidya (only have 3 games and 1 system), and a laptop. People work with have way more stuff than me but I don't want a lot because I don't see the point and I have to save up.

>This applies to any hobby or thing you spend money on that isnt bread, water, shelter.

But those are necessities though. Im not saying people shouldn't buy stuff they like, but if you're at a point where you can buy so many un useful things to live lavishly and still be rich, maybe you shouldn't be having that much money

>>35053982
You're not. You're actually providing them opportunities. No one is forcing them to work. No one but the government is keeping them from entering the market with their businesses if somehow they are also capable of competing in the market.

He could be taxed 50% and still have enough left over so all his future descendants never have to work again

>>35053975
And how do you want to separate the state from the economy without intending to abolish it altogether? Assuming you attempted to do so, the moment capitalism falls into a crisis in which commodities' value can no longer be realized on the market is where the state must act or the whole economic cycle will collapse on itself.

>>35053982
I am not stealing from them in any way. They offer their working force for a given salary, how high that is is up to debate. If I'd not make a surplus out of it, it would become uneconomical because I would loose money that way.

>>35054010
That money is there though. Who should get it? The government, ie people on welfare?

If you live in the United States, arent disabled, and cant find a way to make a living, you dont deserve anything. Especially not someone else's money.

>>35054043
>the moment capitalism falls into a crisis in which commodities' value can no longer be realized on the market is where the state must act or the whole economic cycle will collapse on itself.
This only happens because of the state's intervention.

>>35054025
No one is forcing them to work, except for the material conditions of our society. You do not work, you starve. Land is owned by the capitalists and this claim to ownership enforced by violence. Capital is essential to participation in the market as you suggest it, but not available to everyone -- and even if it where, the importance is the relative value of capital, since the resources are limited and the person with the most capital always wins out in the end. You deny reality.

>>35053998

If you believe that a corporation has the same rights as a person when it benefits them then then you treat them like one for the unpleasant parts as well.

>>35054077
The whole reason the state pumps money into the economy is because of aforementioned crisis happening before -- and it happens whenever you cannot create enough consumer demand, for whatever reason. Cultural changes, distribution failures, natural catastrophes and so on. When capitalist are producing their goods and cannot realize their value, they essentially made a loss, leading to dangerous downwards (instead of upwards) spiral under a capitalist system. It's why every country on this earth is so afraid of an economic depression and incentivizes inflation.

>>35054078
>You do not work, you starve. Land is owned by the capitalists and this claim to ownership enforced by violence.
The bad distribution as you noted is only enforced by the state's regulation over the market.
>since the resources are limited and the person with the most capital always wins out in the end
In a free market a business only wins if it provides what the population requires. Unproductive capital can only sustain itself because of the rigging of the state.

>>35054010
Ok maybe only 98% of his net worth is amazon stock.

>return from stock investment that he didn't have to do anything for.

He didn't fucking buy amazon stock, he founded the company and this is what he is left after he sold the rest to expand the company.

>>35054148
>The bad distribution as you noted is only enforced by the state's regulation over the market.
Are you trying to say that if the state were removed from the equation, capitalist's ownership to land and resources would cease to exist and they would not attempt to exert their control over it through violence if necessary?

>In a free market a business only wins if it provides what the population requires. Unproductive capital can only sustain itself because of the rigging of the state.
You observe the irrationality correctly, but cannot see the reason for it. >>35054144

And by the way, consumer demand is not rational, especially not under capitalism. There is a whole industry behind creating consumer demand, marketing.

>>35054206
*capitalist's claim of ownership

>>35049699
People like this should be taxed at 90%

>>35054206
>capitalist's ownership to land and resources would cease to exist and they would not attempt to exert their control over it through violence if necessary?
Nope. First because the market would stratificate the distribution of land because of its own nature and acumulation of land would only logically happen because that land would have a desireable benefit for the consumer. No capitalist would be able to retain land if it wasn't economically productive because his resources would dry up sooner or later. Second because a state apart from the market doesn't mean that the state wouldn't still have the monopoly of military power.

>And by the way, consumer demand is not rational
The state is not the one to decide over the rationality of the demands of the consumer.
>There is a whole industry behind creating consumer demand, marketing.
That's awesome.

>>35049759
>wealth is limited
If he would have all the money in the world. Would he still be rich?

>>35052967
Ok then faggot. I better not see you spending that extra 20 dollars in your wallet on vidya games when you could be giving some of that to some kid in africa.

>>35052967
>while directly outside it is a crowd of people suffering and dying from lack of basic necessities.
I don't give a flying fuck about the overpopulated areas where the people are too plain stupid to grow food or find water. Just giving money to stupid people is not going to fix issues, it creates greater ones.

>>35054319
>If he would have all the money in the world. Would he still be rich?
No, because he'd lack the new currency bottle caps.

>>35054291
>Nope. First because the market would stratificate the distribution of land because of its own nature and acumulation of land would only logically happen because that land would have a desireable benefit for the consumer. No capitalist would be able to retain land if it wasn't economically productive because his resources would dry up sooner or later.
Why would his resources dry up if he owns the land? Under capitalism he can rent out the land to whomever wants to use it and is generating a profit out of thin air, further increasing his share of capital and through this his power over the land. If he decides to use the land for his own due to potentially greater profits, he can just kick the person who is renting it out and make use of it -- with the state out of the way his influence over the land is strengthened, not weakened. Assuming nobody wants to rent the land and the land is -- for some reason -- costing profits instead of generating them, it would be economically useless and therefore not viable to anyone in the first place. Any answer libertardians can come up with always boils down to "because the market wills it", why are you never able to explain the market processes and reasoning behind them? Pure ideology with you guys.

>Second because a state apart from the market doesn't mean that the state wouldn't still have the monopoly of military power.
And if the state were to use that military power to interfere with the market (which by extension they would do if they were to respond to a capitalist's action within the market economy) we would be back at square zero -- which is why you cannot separate state from market, should aim to abolish the state, which again is not possible or fruitless however since the state is a natural consequence of capitalism.

>>35054347
I don't think you understand how much 74 billion is.

>>35054319
No, because capitalism requires the flow of capital and if one person was in possession of all the money in the world, they would stop the flow, the system would break down and his wealth would be meaningless.

Do you know how I can tell everybody in this thread is either a butthurt wagie or poverty stricken retard?

reminder that most of these libertarian faggots defending porky are NEETs who support capitalism so they can get paid to do nothing all day. unless you're a millionaire it's in your interest to fight the bourgie.
>b-but I'm going to be a millionaire someday!
no you're not.
>b-but I don't want to share money with niggers!
then you won't get the money at all.
>bbb-ut muh job creators
there were more jobs and more economic growth when porky was taxed much higher and workers rights was much better.

>>35054604
How can you, oh wise man?

>>35054604
because they think rich people have 10's of billions sitting in a bank account

>>35054524
>Why would his resources dry up if he owns the land? Under capitalism he can rent out the land to whomever wants to use it and is generating a profit out of thin air, further increasing his share of capital and through this his power over the land.
If he rents the land it becomes productive but he won't be able to maintain the land without redirecting its value to the market without state intervention. His resources dry up or he generates profit, there is no other choice in a free market.
>If he decides to use the land for his own due to potentially greater profits, he can just kick the person who is renting it out and make use of it
Still making use of it. If he is not properly competing in the market with it he won't generate profit to maintain the land.
>with the state out of the way his influence over the land is strengthened
That's great because it only strengthens if he takes place in the competition.
>Assuming nobody wants to rent the land and the land is -- for some reason -- costing profits instead of generating them, it would be economically useless and therefore not viable to anyone in the first place.
Then his only choices are renting/selling or generating profit. If this set of land is not viable to anyone then it doesn't really matter.
>And if the state were to use that military power to interfere with the market (which by extension they would do if they were to respond to a capitalist's action within the market economy) we would be back at square zero
That's exactly why you should separate both. The state is not to use its power over the market. A capitalist can only negatively exploit the market if aided by the state. If he generates negative repercussions his resources either dry up or they are bought until these resources land on positive forces.

I can't believe people still actually defend capitalism and billionaires that got lucky, even after being "redpilled" on the internet.

I don't know what the solution is but I at least admit there is a problem. Do you expect to become rich some day? Is that why you're holding your tongue and playing the game?

>>35050504
We're specifically speaking about his wealth, that IS what he has stuffed under his mattress, though in reality it is scattered across many different banks, funds and stock. Amazon is worth much, much more than $74 billion you fucking idiot lmao

>>35049699
Because he earned it.

Progress is built upon inequality. If everybody is equal nobody has a reason to succeed.

File: 1451865987985.jpg (49KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1920x1080px

soon i will have more then him >:P

>>35049699
amazon is dank af he deserves it. eventually i hope to only purchase from amazon.

>>35054891
>Do you expect to become rich some day? Is that why you're holding your tongue and playing the game?
I don't care. In a free market the rich is only rich or keeps its wealth if he is valuable to the people and the market. The existence of rich people is a good thing.

>>35055086
Imagine being this classcucked.

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px)

17KB, 480x400px

>>35049718
Do you like helicopter rides?

>>35055050

Agreed, a package failed to get delivered to me. Although I had no real proof delivery hadn't happened I called amazon customer service. After asking me a couple of questions they dispatched and delivered a new one within 24 hours completely free.

That's a cool company and that guy deserves his money.

>>35055086

The wealth of the bourgeoisie depends on the labor of the proletariat. The proletariat creates the value; the bourgeoisie then take it and pays back only a fraction to those who actually made it.

>>35049699
Pricks like him are the reason we haven't cured cancer

There should be a cap on how much money a single person can make

>>35055116
>Imagine being this classcucked
Imagine being this leftcucked.

>>35055154
No one is keeping you from creating your own wealth instead of wasting your time on 4chan.

>>35055154
>bourgeoisie
this isn't the fucking 1800s
social mobility is actually a thing

>>35055233
>Looking at larger moves, only 4% of those raised in the bottom quintile moved up to the top quintile as adults.
The American dream.

>>35054891
>a package failed to get delivered to me. Although I had no real proof delivery hadn't happened I called amazon customer service. After asking me a couple of questions they dispatched and delivered a new one within 24 hours completely free

This is the service he built and provides for millions that are paying for it willingly. No one is keeping them from buying from the competition. No one is demanding people to even buy anything.

>>35055286
It doesn't matter where you are if quality of life is only going up.

>>35055153
One time I bought a blender on Amazon for like $200 and it came with a small surface scratch on the glass container part. I took a pic and they sent me a new part. Was really nice because now I have two attachments.

>>35055323
Quality of life for Americans has been declining ever since the 70s.

>>35055357
Source? Maybe some graphs?

>>35055286
Yeah and, guess what, 90% of people are useless pieces of shit that don't make the slightest efford.

File: 1486512454633.jpg (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

>>35049981
>Rewarding innovation is good, and always good - but rewarding it to the point where these people become rich beyond measure while we have starvation, poverty and crime is absurd.

Why? This premise implies that all human beings are equal, which is objectively false. Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates are not equivalent to an average street bum, and the average street bum could not be Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates if his life circumstances were better.

>>35050056
Then why do they need it?
Large wealth inequality has bad impact on society and it allows very small numbers of people to drastically warp things like political process.