Isn’t it though? Holding on to a stock, and receiving stock grants are not investments. The little money that was actually has been returned a millions of times over. That money is now just sitting there. I’d they were actively investing instead of just collecting rents, they’d be selling the stock and then giving it to other businesses, but that’s not what happens. It literally sits there for points. Even purchasing a superyacht and apocalypse bunker in New Zealand is more of an investment than simplying holding onto it for points on a Forbes list.

It’s hording because the amount of wealth is long past the point of diminishing returns. Do you really think that Bezos’s life is going to change at all if he actually had to give up half his wealth to his soon to be ex-wife? I don’t. And yet, the wealth provides the same market and political warping that all monopolies (a market failure) cause.

>Anytime an article talks about the supposed paper billions someone is making they inevitably fail to point out how that wealth is actually being put to work. For some reason there’s this notion that billionaires just sit on their wealth like dragons hoarding gold.

Well, them "putting the wealth to work" is even worse. This means a single person gets to use their money to dictate policies, which is not of their business in a democratic society (much less in foreign countries they don't belong to).

I think you are conflating the power to organize resources toward meeting a market need with political corruption.

The latter is a problem, the former is not. They are not the same thing.

Involvenment in policy (re agriculture, environment, Africa, vaccine, etc), sponsoring "think tanks" and symposiums, controlling policy through "charity", etc. is not a "market need".

policies shouldn’t be able to dictated by wealth in the first place or this wouldn’t be an issue.

one solution to this is campaign finance reform. another is to not make your government powerful enough to make policies like that because they will always be corrupted

but actually bill gates isn’t very involved at all in electoral politics and as far as i know doesn’t really donate

>but actually bill gates isn’t very involved at all in electoral politics and as far as i know doesn’t really donate

That's because electoral politics are a sham. He'll get his way with the one or the other candidate/party anyway, and his reach and policy influence is global...

But why should any single individual have control over all that capital? Why couldn't we decide collectively (democratically) where the money gets invested, just like we do in politics? That's the essence of socialist argument.

Giving money to politicians is not an answer to social imbalance. Who’s to say we won’t simply buy ourselves another $2T 20 year war?

Actually, it is the answer, proven by reality: Over 70% of the non-housing wealth in Norway is socially owned and it works great.

I am not sure what you're arguing, I am pro-democratic, even in the workplace.

How would that even work?

If i make a breakthrough technology and make a million dollars, the more intelligent collective intelligence of society can make me invest it in dogecoin? On average, the general population is pretty dumb in my opinion. Leaving investment decisions to mob rule/ collectivism is even dumber.

> How would that even work?

In my mind, if you want to build a company, you have to invite people to it on equal terms. So from a certain size, I would argue you should only be allowed to create a worker cooperative (all employees as co-owners, one employee one vote) as a company structure.

> On average, the general population is pretty dumb in my opinion.

Well, in my opinion, "average person is dumb" is a chauvinism for nerds. Being dumb doesn't mean you shouldn't have a seat at the (decision-making) table, just like being black doesn't mean it.

Anyway, I get we will disagree, you don't like democracy, and that's fine. China is building a system like that, where the decisions are only made by party members, who are certified to be above-average among the citizenry. Maybe that would suit you better than democracy.

>one employee one vote

So, the janitor has as much say as Elon on which rocket architecture they should be pursuing? Which projects to pursue and what timelines they should be pursued on? Sounds like the Janitor is under-qualified to have an opinion in this matter.

>you don't like democracy

Yup, see the above example for why democracy is a dumb idea. That's why in the US we don't have a democracy, we have a democratic republic. I know I am not qualified to vote on every issue, that's why i elect representatives to make those decisions for me. It's their full time job and is also why America is one of the greatest nations because we don't have a system like China.

> Being dumb doesn't mean you shouldn't have a seat at the (decision-making) table

Yes - That's exactly what it means. If you are not qualified to answer basic questions on the subject matter you should defer to people who are more versed in the matter than you are. You should have no right to argue on technical matters you don't understand.

>China is building a system like that

No they're not. They are building a totalitarian dictatorship in the form of an oligarchy.

Not everyone is equal. That idea is easily falsifiable. Some people are inherently more intelligent, can contribute effectively (Sometimes having an inordinate impact than their peers)to design issues.

one question; Should the sales guy who's brought in $2M in sales this quarter be paid the same as the guy who brought in 50k? Should they both be on equal footing in being able to decide the sales funnel? Should they both be Co-Owners, with no difference between them even though one guy is obviously much better than the other?

> How would that even work?

Taxes and a democracy.

Or if you want an even more radical solution, taxes and literally a check to people.

>Leaving investment decisions to mob rule/ collectivism is even dumber.

I take it you’re not a fan of free markets, and instead throw in with command and control economies.

Another (more unpleasant) way of putting that is to ask “why can’t the majority just take desirable things from people they don’t like for itself?” The idea of private property is there in part to protect you from governments and large groups of people who want your stuff

This is often misunderstood about socialism. I am not against people owning stuff. The problem is, owning a factory (a company) is not owning just the physical assets, it's also owning the social structure (the workers and managers employed, their know-how, the customers..) that makes the factory work. That's what I see problematic, because it involves other people, and telling them what to do.

In other words, private ownership of capital is objectionable, and not private ownership.

> For some reason there’s this notion that billionaires just sit on their wealth like dragons hoarding gold.

Literally nobody is under that illusion. People just think capital should be owned more evenly.