[pllbnk]

I don’t get why reasonable claims like this get downvoted. Are billionaires downvoting them? Do so many other ambitious people expect to become billionaires at some point in their lives?

[groundzeros2015]

This comment is repeating a political slogan with no consideration of the content of the article.

Also the slogan is a Marxist alternative theory of wealth and power which conflicts with some basic premises of being interested in startups and is debunked in pg readings.

[coldpie]

> This comment is repeating a political slogan with no consideration of the content of the article.

Bezos was able to purchase one of the nation's most important news outlets because he is a billionaire. If his wealth was capped at $100M, he would have had to pool resources with many other ultra-wealthy individuals to effect the same purchase. These people would have competing interests, and would also themselves be open to being bought out because their ownership stake in the company would be small. This would be good for the country, because one person being able to turn an important news outlet into his personal propaganda machine is bad, as the article describes.

[bigstrat2003]

I downvoted it because I think that forcibly taking away people's wealth (however much or little they have) is immoral in the extreme. However, I did just now vouch for it because the post isn't breaking any rules even if I do think it's a bad take.

[pllbnk]

Let’s not discount with what means that wealth has been acquired in the first place. One man’s wealth might be poverty for the thousands. That’s why we got social welfare, it’s just not doing enough. At this point I would say a random store floor cleaner is more valuable for society than someone like Jeff Bezos.

[tengbretson]

My grandchildren will likely need to be billionaires just to retire.