Yup, they would be quite surprised after they destroy the biggest wealth producers in society and trigger massive starvation and death for everyone... good intentions dont get you very far, least of all when you do the exact opposite of whats best for society.
That isnt to say that there arent issues to address with the rich, there are, but if your going to eliminate rich people all together, you might as well just cover yourself in honey and go hug a bear, your chance of coming out of it with something positive to show would be much higher.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Some of us prefer businesses that produce actual value, like cheeseburgers or houses, instead of just "wealth".
The people who actually create those things should be the wealthy in a just society, not the people who were born to it.
Cheese burgers and houses **are** wealth... Based on your wording you are confusing "wealth" (things that have utility and value) and money..
If you have profit alone, then you just are moving money around.. you arent generating wealth (or money)... in order to generate wealth you must increase the overall number of things in society with utility... So yes what i said already was in line with what your saying, you just are using wealth in the way of "collecting wealth" which is not the same as "generating wealth".
> The people who actually create those things should be the wealthy in a just society, not the people who were born to it.
Agreed, like the people who sacraficed decades to create the idea, get funding, investing in the building, getting the money to pay people to do the labour, etc... yes the owners who risk everything and actually create the wealth are the people who should be wealthy.
> If you have profit alone, then you just are moving money around
So then you would agree that most of the stock trading industry is not, by your definition, "generating wealth" despite the fact that they become fabulously wealthy by performing their jobs?
> yes the owners who risk everything and actually create the wealth are the people who should be wealthy.
The problem is that the guys who come in after the original owner sells are paid even more, usually just to ruin what the original owner built. Most businesses aren't owned by their founders, or even people who care about the long-term health of the business, but rather short-term investors who are only looking to cash out as soon as possible. That mindset of wealth extraction is what's wrong with so much of business today.
@undefined @admitsWrongIfProven @LouisIngenthron
So then you would agree that most of the stock trading industry is not, by your definition, “generating wealth” despite the fact that they become fabulously wealthy by performing their jobs?
Its a bit more complex than that… Stocks directly allow a company to aquire funding from the public.. If the company is a company that generates wealth (not all companies necceseraly do), and you buying their stock enabled them to have the liquid capital needed to invest in a project that accelerated their growth, and thus their ability to generate wealth… then no, you as an investor in their stock on the market directly helped wealth get generated as a result of your investment.
If you invest in companies that are all vapour ware and dont actually generate wealth themselves, then no you arent generating wealth, even if you get rich doing it…
As with most things, it depends ont he nuance and any pure ideological standpoint is just nonsense.
The problem is that the guys who come in after the original owner sells are paid even more, usually just to ruin what the original owner built
As with everything it is situational.. if a new owner comes in and tanks the company (or changes it froma wealth generator to non-wealth generator regardless of value)… then yea your right, they are destroying wealth not creating it… However if they enable the company to create more things which add utility to the world, tehn they may be continuing to generate new wealth… again it depends. It is situational
Most businesses aren’t owned by their founders, or even people who care about the long-term health of the business,
Being owned by the founders is completely irrelevant to if they are a wealth-generator.. even caring about the long-term heath is irrelevant to if they are wealth generators now or int he near future.. you can make choices which ensure your company is a wealth generator for 5 years to come but your plan is flawed and then by 10 years it may fail. This failure does not necceseeraly destroy its wealth previously generated thoughm but it may, it depends.
but rather short-term investors who are only looking to cash out as soon as possible.
Generating a lot of wealth in the short term, knowing the company will be destroyed int he long, still generates wealth, so long as its destruction doesnt destroy the previous utility it created.
A car company that sells cars and makes a profit for a year, then tanks, still generated wealth for a year, then stopped, even if the companies value goes to 0 the amount of utility added to the world is the same (those cars still exist) and thus overall still generated wealth.
“Generating a lot of wealth in the short term, knowing the company will be destroyed int he long, still generates wealth”
Sure, it “still generates wealth”. Burning cash for heat generates wealth if you’re cold, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. Why would you look only at wealth in a single point of time? A company that lasts 100 years generates far more wealth than a company that closes after one. By seeking short-term profits over long, the investors are robbing the company of future wealth to pay themselves dividends now. And they enshittify the products and services as a result of their wealth extraction techniques. We see it happening over and over.
Investment is a good thing for business. But publicly-traded companies aren’t invested into; They’re bet on like ponies in a race, and the incentives that come from that rob all of us in the long run.
Just to be clear despite my strong opposition to ideas on economy. I like and respect you as a person. So please dont take my harsh criticism personally in any way.
It seemed you were saying by “not invested into” that companies didnt get the money from buying stocks or their stock price rising…
Seems that may not have been what you meant, so again, sorry if I assumed or misunderstoof what you meant to say.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven I’m a little bit annoyed about your assumptions about what I know, but not at all about your argument. I enjoy the give and take as well.