That sixteen thousand million implies that you can't count either. No billionaires in your world anyway, just "thousand millionaires"... lame. — Wosret

You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
[1] [2]

You made a million dollars because you externalized the costs stemming from your business. Your homemade brownie operation was never inspected, and you caused an epidemic of intestinal distress amount your customers (you used ingredients you picked up at a warehouse that dealt in products damaged during shipping). 3 people died of heart attacks because your admittedly delicious, succulent candies were loaded with heart-stopping fat. Your workers were all illegal aliens from Switzerland where automation has resulted in a lot of laid-off chocolate workers. Consequently, you didn't have to pay them much. Plus, one of your workers lost a foot when it was caught in a chocolate milling machine. (And just where did that foot end up?) The county hospital spent 800,000 on his care, unreimbursed. Now the American People have to decide what to do with all these Swiss aliens who speak German, French, and Italian but no English.

Your homemade brownie operation was never inspected, and you caused an epidemic of intestinal distress amount your customers (you used ingredients you picked up at a warehouse that dealt in products damaged during shipping). 3 people died of heart attacks because your admittedly delicious, succulent candies were loaded with heart-stopping fat. Your workers were all illegal aliens from Switzerland where automation has resulted in a lot of laid-off chocolate workers. Consequently, you didn't have to pay them much. Plus, one of your workers lost a foot when it was caught in a chocolate milling machine. (And just where did that foot end up?) The county hospital spent 800,000 on his care, unreimbursed. Now the American People have to decide what to do with all these Swiss Aliens. — Bitter Crank

None of this is true in my hypothetical scenario.

I don't get it. If I start selling homemade brownies, and make enough money to hire a few people to help me, and then manage to sell half my company for £1,000,000, making me a millionaire, there's certainly something unjust about this because paramedics are only making £37,000 a year? — Michael

What don't you get about that? Are you suggesting that you and your hypothetical brownie business is worth more than the value of saving lives?

Nah, you just don't get it. It was a kind of test, and you failed.

Oh noes. I failed your silly test. Whatever shall I do?

I wouldn't know -- I haven't visited your hypothetical scenario. However, the point remains: Just because your hypothetical business succeeded financially doesn't mean that you deserve to be hypothetically rich. Look, I don't want you to be poor at whatever you do in real life.

Take Bill Gates: Gates was very lucky that IBM bought his user-unfriendly operating system (DOS) for their new line of personal computers which were something of a gamble: Personal computers were not an established thing when they first came out. Neither were Apple's first products. Because he was lucky, we were stuck with that fucking operating system for a long time. I don't hate Microsoft or Bill Gates. Many of his products are fine, and once he figured out how to build a decent user interface, things were better. But I don't think Gates did anything so distinguished that he deserves to be the richest guy, or that Apple deserves to be the richest company. The same goes for Walmart, Amazon (which is now twice as big as Walmart), Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al.

I think we both know what you must do.

What don't you get about that? Are you suggesting that you and your hypothetical brownie business is worth more than the value of saving lives? — Sapientia

I don't really understand your question. You seem to be equivocating on "worth" and "value". The monetary value of my company, given its assets and expected profits, is £2,000,000. That's more than the paramedic gets paid.

Just because your hypothetical business succeeded financially doesn't mean that you deserve to be hypothetically rich. Look, I don't want you to be poor at whatever you do in real life. — Bitter Crank

I don't know what you mean by deserve here. I own a business that sells lots of brownies. An investor, seeing its success, was willing to spend £1,000,000 of his money to buy half the business. What's the problem? Should he have spent less?

Sure. One of the reasons Apple has so much cash (250 billion dollars) is because I, and lots of other people, found their goods and services appealing. It isn't Apple's fault, obviously.

I would have less of a problem with a company like Apple (or 500 other ones) IF tax collection on their profits was higher, more efficient and more effective. As it is, a lot of revenue is lost owning to lobbying for favors and sheltering wealth in tax havens.

I don't really understand your question. You seem to be equivocating on "worth" and "value". The monetary value of my company, given its assets and expected profits, is £2,000,000. That's more than the paramedic gets paid. — Michael

I'm not equivocating, and do you think that I don't know that? I'm asking you whether you think that that's right. I'm asking you whether you think that that monetary evaluation is in sync with the value (in a broader sense) of your business, based on what it does, compared to the value (in a broader sense) of a parademic, based on what he or she does.

I'm not equivocating, and do you think that I don't know that? I'm asking you whether you think that that's right. I'm asking you whether you think that that monetary evaluation is in sync with the value (in a broader sense) of your business, based on what it does, compared to the value (in a broader sense) of a parademic, based on what he or she does. — Sapientia

I still don't understand the issue. If you think that the paramedic isn't getting paid enough then you should speak to his employer. My brownie business has nothing to do with his wage. Or if you think that my business isn't worth £2,000,000 then you should speak to the investor and convince him to offer a smaller amount for the same share. But then he'd probably just be outbid by someone else. And even if he's not, I'm still making quite a lot more than the paramedic based on the income from selling brownies. Maybe I should charge at cost? But then how would that help the paramedic? At best it helps him save money on the occasional brownie.

Perhaps it's just me, but brownies seem trivial compared to human lives.

Perhaps it's just me, but brownies seem trivial compared to human lives. — Sapientia

Sure. But what has that go to do with money?

Well, yes, to some extent it is a question of worth or value. A brownie and cookie operation might have a value of $1m, $2m, or $100 million, and in comparison to the efforts of people to save lives, not be worth much at all.

The point Sapientia is making (and I agree with his view) is that jobs that involve saving lives, or enhancing minds (teachers, for instance) are worth more than making money, and that those worthwhile jobs should be paid more.

In the world we live in, nobody will arrest you for making a million bucks when you sell your start up brownie making operation. That doesn't make your brownies as worth while as saved lives.

I still don't understand the issue. If you think that the paramedic isn't getting paid enough then you should speak to his employer. My brownie business has nothing to do with his wage. Or if you think that my business isn't worth £2,000,000, then you should speak to the investor and convince him to offer a smaller amount for the same share. But then he'd probably just be outbid by someone else. — Michael

My assessment of why you do not understand the issue is that you are too engrossed in business norms to think outside of the box.

My assessment of why you do not understand the issue is that you are too engrossed in business norms to think outside of the box. — Sapientia

So what's the solution? A business owner should gift shares of his company to paramedics?

The point Sapientia is making (and I agree with his view) is that jobs that involve saving lives, or enhancing minds (teachers, for instance) are worth more than making money, and that those worthwhile jobs should be paid more. — Bitter Crank

What kind of economy would allow for that? How can the millions of paramedics and teachers ever be richer than the man who owns 10% of a business with annual profits of a £1 billion?

So what's the solution? A business owner should gift shares of his company to paramedics? — Michael

That would be great, but would he or she be willing to do so? My prediction is that many business owners would not be willing. Therefore, the redistribution should be forced.

That would be great, but would he or she be willing to do so? My prediction is that many business owners would not be willing. Therefore, they the redistribution should be forced. — Sapientia

So the people who spend millions buying shares in a business will be forced to give them away? Then why would they buy them in the first place?

Your idealistic scenario makes no economic sense.

So the people who spend millions buying shares in a business will be forced to give them away? Then why would they buy them in the first place? — Michael

Yes, they'd be forced to give them away. That would be an example of forceful redistribution.

Your second question makes no sense. They had already bought them, under the corrupt system in place at the time. Things would be different now. The wealth would be more evenly spread - for the many, not the few - and we'd live in a fairer society as a result.

See, the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer! Everyone gets rich, just the richer get way way way fucking richer. — Wosret

The rich get richer because the poor get poorer.

The enormous concentration of wealth among a very small number of people distorts the flow of capital. The small number of exceeding rich people can not invest their vast wealth in millions of worthwhile projects--that is far too time and energy consuming--so they end up sitting on it, or enlarging it by screwing around with currency trading, and the like. The millions of worthwhile projects, mean while, are starving for cash.

The poor get poorer also because the very rich hide their assets from governments, so governments have less money than they should to invest in their people.

There may be people on planets around other stars who are inconceivably richer than anyone on earth. It doesn't matter, because our economy isn't involved with theirs. But when you have people on earth who are inconceivably richer than 99.9% of everyone else here, it definitely caused economic problems.

How can the millions of paramedics and teachers ever be richer than the man who owns 10% of a business with annual profits of a £1 billion? — Michael

They won't be richer than your plutocrat, and after forced redistribution, your plutocrat won't be rich and will have to get a real job. He might want to be something useful like a sanitation worker. And because of the redistribution of wealth, he will be better paid than sanitation workers were before the redistribution.

He gets a real job doing something useful, and gets paid a decent wage. Win win.

However, an olive branch: — Thorongil

Olive branches are being accepted at this time. Thank you.

Yes, they'd be forced to give them away. That would be an example of forceful redistribution. — Sapientia

And do what with them? Owning shares doesn't help put food on the table. They can't sell them because there's nobody to buy them any more. I suppose if every company was forced to pay out dividends, but only enough to amount to a supplementary income else all these paramedics and teachers will just quit and live of these payments. But dividends reduce share value, and given that there's now no trading the shares won't really increase (especially given that the company now has less money to invest and grow). Rinse and repeat, until the shares aren't worth much (although I'm no expert in economics, so maybe I'm missing something). And of course no new businesses will be started as there's now no incentive.

Again, I think your idealistic scenario makes no economic sense. Or maybe this will just end up as communism?

They won't be richer than your plutocrat, and after forced redistribution, your plutocrat won't be rich and will have to get a real job. He might want to be something useful like a sanitation worker. And because of the redistribution of wealth, he will be better paid than sanitation workers were before the redistribution.

He gets a real job doing something useful, and gets paid a decent wage. Win win. — Bitter Crank

I suppose you're a fan of Cohen? Egalitarianism for its own sake? I'm more partial to Rawls. Massive wealth inequality is acceptable if it means the worst off are as well off as possible.

Better for the 1% to have £1,000,000 and the 99% to have £30,000 than for everyone to have £20,000.

However, an olive branch: — Thorongil

Imagine, if you will, and if censorship will permit, a picture of an olive branch, which is grasped at both ends by a pair of hands, and which has been snapped in half.

This would be symbolic of the antagonism I wish to express, in a somewhat humorous manner, towards such a peace offering.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, and I wish that my fellow moderators would appreciate this more, and be a little less intolerant.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you rejecting the claim I advanced on which I thought we might find common ground?

the redistribution should be forced — Sapientia

A rather ominous declaration. What if they resist? Are you simply going to murder them? Stalin tried that with the kulaks, and after piling up their corpses, the result of the redistribution was mass famine.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Are you rejecting the claim I advanced on which I thought we might find common ground? — Thorongil

I didn't plan to say anything at all, but that didn't quite work out. I'm not rejecting the claim or the common ground. Just the peace offering. It would take more than that for me to give up the fight - that's all.