@futurebird the preview of this cut it off to just the first 2 responses for some reason, which I think is conditioning the reply comments

@datarama

I think many people would agree that "It's impossible to earn a Billion honestly" but at the same time feel like it's "too much" to suggest that anything could be done about it.

A guy once said I wanted to do genocide because I said "Billionaires probably shouldn't exist. It's too much power for even the most honest compassionate person to manage properly." Like he thought I was just evil and murderous for saying that.

He wasn't even a millionaire and never will be one.

@mattmcirvin

I had to edit it ... it just posted before I was done typing!

@futurebird

I can think of one or two billionaires who probably earned their wealth honestly, and they're basically all just creators who won big. So, people who made something of value and then got extremely lucky.

And, I guess, people who inherited their wealth count since *they* didn't commit the crime.

@futurebird Anyway, seeing all four, I think it would not shock me to hear any of them expressed, but whether sometime said #3 or the others would at this point in history be an ideological marker.

@suetanvil @futurebird I'd say there might be some people who acquired their wealth without having *themselves* done anything immoral, but even there I'd hesitate to say they *earned* it.

@Scmbradley @suetanvil

I think it's might be possible to accumulate millions in this way. But billions? To have that kind of wealth you need to use the power that wealth can produce to further enrich yourself. Not just selling a thing people like, or running a company that makes sense, no you need to manipulate the system to keep the money flowing back to you.

And people might start doing this to "preserve" their wealth... but at some point it's something else. It's absurd. Grotesque.

@futurebird I think what's disappearing is the sort of moderate-neoliberal sentiment that this level of wealth concentration is a necessary evil that we tolerate to enjoy the general boons of a dynamic economy. In the 1990s, say, I think that was actually a popular idea, even among people who didn't buy into the whole libertarian-right package.

@futurebird I took the liberty of interpreting "most people you know" to mean "most people in my society", which is wealthy, safe little Denmark & I'm afraid that Danes, while superficially in favor of social justice, mostly balk at anything perceived as critical of "upward mobility", which would include the idea that wealth in itself can be evil. Similarly, many would interpret anti-billionairism as an attack on personal freedom. So 1, 2 and 4 here.

@jwcph

But this is about a billion not a million or half a million or something.

Being a billionaire isn't "upward mobility" it's domination.

But I also think you are correctly describing how many people see this. They hear "you can't ever make it big" and that's not even what this about.

@futurebird There's the idea that as long as everyone has "enough" in some sense, who cares about the Gini coefficient? But it's an unstable situation. The really big money-accumulators start throwing their political weight around to actually immiserate everyone else, and the poor in particular because they want no taxes, no regulations and cheap labor.

@mattmcirvin @futurebird they overplayed their hand. They could have quietly sat on their mountain of gold, enjoying life, working subtle political machinations and gradually growing more wealthy. Getting a hospital, school, or stadium names after them after some lavish donation (builds goodwill). But no, that's not good enough. And now people are ready to tear up the system because it's obvious it only works for the incredibly wealthy