←back to thread

462 points JumpCrisscross | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Refreeze5224 ◴[] No.45079571[source]
[flagged]
replies(7): >>45079637 #>>45079639 #>>45079766 #>>45080078 #>>45080308 #>>45080429 #>>45083035 #
monero-xmr ◴[] No.45079637[source]
That’s fine if you accept that you can’t force the rich at gunpoint to stay, or seize their wealth upon exit.

But if they do choose to leave, or at least stop expanding their businesses, you can’t deny the rational self interest

replies(7): >>45079757 #>>45079774 #>>45079800 #>>45079987 #>>45080342 #>>45080349 #>>45080387 #
1. NietzscheanNull ◴[] No.45079800[source]
If a nation's fortune hinges on permitting a handful of extremely rich individuals to extract wealth with impunity, wield their immense hoard to buy up major media organizations and communication platforms, use those assets to continually suppress labor and consumer protections, and fix political elections by way of SuperPACs and other dark-money slush funds... well, that isn't my idea of a robust society or economy.

We've done fine without them in the past, and we'd be better off without them now. At the end of the day, labor and its fruits are the primary origin of value in an economy, not the handful of individuals that have had the immense luck and/or dubious ethics required to capture that value for their personal gain.