[mynjin]

JK Rowling exploiting workers is a straw man and sidesteps the point.

To some people what I wrote will be a truism and to others it will beg the question.

I see what side that fell on for you and that's good, I'm not citing anything, so definitely question my reasoning. But don't think for a second that producing a handful of books people ended up wanting can generate that amount of value.

In the case of Rowling, she was also executive producer of several Harry Potter films and was no doubt a benificiary of motion picture accounting to a greater or lesser degree. She controls charities and who knows how many shell companies and trusts to hide and manipulate wealth. That's what you have access to at that scale of rich.

Furthermore, if she wasn't cooking the books, hiding and differentiating wealth for tax benefit, placing herself in position to extract more wealth, then she would be the stupid one among her rich peer group and would quickly find herself like one of those lottery winners who are back to being poor and none the wiser 5 years later.

Another truism is that it sounds fun to be rich, but it probably isn't very.

Another truism is that I'm sure we'd all rather suffer being rich than be poor.

[u32480932048]

It doesn't sidestep the point, it shows the value of your truism, particularly in a 21st century globalized, internet-scale economy.

Who's being exploited if I upload a song (or ringtone, or wallpaper) to an app store for $0.99 and it gets millions - perhaps even billions - of downloads?

(Answer: me, because of the app stores' rapacious policies)