I think taking them seriously might mean not that “any amount of wealth creation is some degree of failure” but that “failure” begins at, say, $100MM and very slowly gets more and more serious towards $1B. Can’t guess their real proposal though, maybe I’m being generous.
If true, the “every billionaire is a policy failure” idea is woefully incomplete. $999M would still be a policy failure; $10B is a bigger failure than $1B. It’s a non-binary spectrum, then, where any amount of wealth creation is some degree of failure. Therein lies the problem.
-
-
-
So it’s binary when it rolls from $99M to $100M?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Of course there's no nuance to be found in the policy or discussion, but this seems like a "take them seriously but not literally" situation
-
What I described *is* taking them seriously but not literally.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I think it's legitimate to ask what is the maximum tolerable wealth multiple, from richest to poorest, where the logical underpinning could well be that abilities and effort lie on a normal distribution, and where the extremes are a calculable difference apart, plausibly <100000x
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I ask quite seriously: Is that reduction to Marxism deliberate? Or is that unintentional?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It is possible that the multiplier in the future would be one individual worth more than an entire planet. Given automation and moon terraforming or Dyson sphere creation. Give it 2,000 years or so. Seems a long ways off, but is actually a blink of the eye.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why not political startup coming.why talent nit moving to politics
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And the point
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Then dont pick a dollar amount. Pick a ratio between the ridiculously high earners and the lowest earners. That way it's universal, it highlights the gap, and it doesn't lose meaning via inflation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.