There are many problems with a gambling based economy, not least among them that over a long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-dat...
Or, I might be completely wrong and just been on an incredible white-hot-streak gambling for the last 30 years.
All of that money that you've "earned" with investment, where do you think it came from? What do you think you've done to deserve it? If investment is fundamentally risky, then it's an unsound basis for a stable society (i.e. it's gambling); if it's not risky, then you can't even argue that you deserve that money by having risked your own capital.
Others might be more conservative and I hope they find and choose investments which match their style and risk-tolerance.
I don't care how you act. That capitalism benefits the rich is not the subject of debate. This isn't /r/wallstreetbets
What is at stake us that all value is created by labor; and that the capitalist class (of which you are a member) is allowed to profit despite not producing anything at all. That makes you a parasite. Isn't that what the rich say about the poor?
That's the communist "Labor Theory of Value" which is nonsense.
For example, spend the day digging a hole in your backyard. Did you create any value? Nope.
Can you explain how it's nonsense? Can you think of a valuable product or service that you consume that is not produced by labor?
> For example, spend the day digging a hole in your backyard. Did you create any value? Nope.
I didn't say that all labor produces value; I said that all value is produced by labor. As a Smart Guy who Created His Own Software Company with No Capital At All, I'm sure you know enough about elementary logic to recognize the difference.
> all value is produced by labor
But you deny that the labor of the CEO produces value.
Consider Microsoft. The company's stock was flat for 10 years. Then Nadella took over as CEO. The stock went up by a factor of 10. Same company, same employees, same intellectual property. The difference was Nadella. A similar story with Steve Jobs' second coming at Apple. And Steve Jobs at Pixar. There are innumerable such stories.
It's similar to military generals. An army's victory or defeat is pretty much entirely due to the general.
So in your view, there are only two options: (a) unlimited astronomical compensation for CEOs while line workers get minimum wage or (b) hippie commune? You really can't see any other option? Even 50 to 60 years ago, CEO salaries were not as distorted as they are today and yet the world did not grind to a stop.
> Then Nadella took over as CEO. The stock went up by a factor of 10
The stock is not a measure of productivity. It's a measure of expectation. The problem with you and many capitalists is that you view the stock as the company's product. It isn't. Is the current version of Windows ten times better than the previous version? No? Then why did the stock go up?
> It's similar to military generals.
Great analogy. A general (O-10) in the US army serving since 1986 makes $19,000/mo. A private (E-1) makes $2,407/mo. That's a difference of ~8x. Now explain to me again why a CEO makes >1000x what his employees make?
It was created by the company you invested in.
> What do you think you've done to deserve it?
I took the risk of providing capital for the company to use to create wealth.
Risk is an elemental characteristic of free markets.
That's right: the value was created by other people, but yet you are benefiting. That makes you a parasite.
> I took the risk of providing capital for the company to use to create wealth.
So what? I can take a risk by jumping into a shallow pool. That's not the same as labor and does not entitle me, ethically, to profit. The profit should go to the people who do the work.
This is classic Marxism.
The employees were compensated commensurate with the value they produced. The value the investors create is the result of taking the risk by providing the capital and organization needed for the company to operate.
If you don't believe that, you're free to organize with like-minded fellow travelers, set up a commune, and split the rewards equally. I would caution you, however, that 20,000 other communes have been set up in the US, and they all disappeared. In my estimation, the typical commune member leaves after about 2 years, because they were doing all the work and the others were lazing around getting their equal share.
Put another way, SpaceX would not exist without Musk.
Correct. Are you going to dispute it or is "this is Marxism" the extent of your argument?
> The employees were compensated commensurate with the value they produced.
If they were compensated commensurate with the value they produced, then there would be no profit for the company, and the CEO's compensation would not be 1000x that of a line worker.
> If you don't believe that, you're free to organize with like-minded fellow travelers, set up a commune, and split the rewards equally.
That is one approach supported by unions.
> Put another way, SpaceX would not exist without Musk.
Yes, and I would not exist without my parents. That does not mean that I give them 90% of my profit.
You're assuming the economy is zero sum, which it obviously is not.
That assumption does not follow from my statement.
What I do assume is that the easiest way to make money is to have money, which means that the rich and get richer and the poor get poorer. We've already seen that the rise of billionaires correlatives with an increase in wealth inequality and poverty.
> the rise of billionaires correlatives with an increase in wealth inequality and poverty
The rise of the wealthy in the 19th century corresponded with scores of millions of people rising out of poverty into the middle class and beyond.
> What I do assume is that the easiest way to make money is to have money, which means that the rich and get richer and the poor get poorer.
Creating value does not make the poor poorer.
Consider the wealth in America today. Compare it with the wealth in America in 1800. Where did all that wealth come from? Rich European immigrants?
Did you know that when Rockefeller built Standard Oil, the price of kerosene dropped 70%. Just who exactly was he "robbing"?
My statement was "long enough time line, all the money ends in very few hands." That has nothing to do with zero-sum. Even if we assume that your premise of "rich billionaires make everyone else richer too", it does nothing to contradict my statement.
> The rise of the wealthy in the 19th century corresponded with scores of millions of people rising out of poverty into the middle class and beyond.
The decrease in poverty in that time period stems principally from industrialized farming techniques, increasing available food resources. There is nothing in that process that requires super-billionaires.
> Creating value does not make the poor poorer.
That depends. If all the created value is in the hands of rich, it gives the rich the power to buy more things, including things that the poor people need, e.g. housing. That drives up prices for the poor, and effectively decreases their buying power. That's how supply and demand work.
> Consider the wealth in America today. Compare it with the wealth in America in 1800.
Now consider the wealth distribution in America now versus the wealth distribution in America 60 years ago. At that time, the difference between the rich and the poor was much smaller. It was also a time of great economic expansion, opportunity, and innovation. So clearly super-billioniares cannot be necessary for economic productivity.