minikites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#D.C._m...

>Diaz told the Washington Post that there was no evidence that Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemicals or was otherwise injured, but stated that "all that transpired played a role in his condition."

>Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, said that Sicknick's manner of death could have been classified as accidental, a homicide, or undetermined.

It sure would be a strange coincidence if his stroke was entirely unrelated as you say.

This hypothetical person was never going to get vaccinated anyway. The only way "preaching" would cause the outcome you describe would be if that adult had the maturity and oppositional defiance of a toddler.

>Brian Sicknick, a 42-year-old responding Capitol Police officer, was pepper-sprayed during the riot, and had two thromboembolic strokes the next day, after which he was placed on life support, and soon died.

>In the immediate aftermath of the attack, some members of Congress and press reports included these two suicides in the number of reported casualties, for a total of seven deaths. In July, two more members of law enforcement who responded to the attack died by suicide.

But the average person has much more marginal utility for their amount of wealth. Going by the average 401k balances here (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/01061...), the marginal utility of dollars $38,401, $160,001, etc is much greater than even millions of dollars at Bezos and Gates level wealth. What else am I missing about utility in this context?

>Gains on those investments are also taxable.

At a much lower rate than income, further cementing the advantages of the ultra-wealthy.

It could be subject to the same utility if we taxed it, that's what I was getting at. Wealthy people aren't using money that society could put to great use.

>Also, not every billionaire is the same. Some may not be giving much, but there are many who have pledged to give away the majority of their fortunes.

Why settle for "some" when we could tax all of them?

Billionaires give away far less of their money compared to the average person:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/ceo-says-billionaires-...

>Based on these figures, MarketWatch reported Bezos donated just .5 percent of his net worth last year - a quarter of the 2 percent the average American donates each year.

Also, why should money be concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy, does their wealth make them more qualified to decide how it's spent compared to society/government?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/12/americ...

>First off, the amounts involved are tiny relative to the fortunes behind them. Bezos’s $100m, for example, amounts to about 11 days of his income.

>Well-publicized philanthropy also conveniently distracts attention from how several of these billionaires are endangering their workers and, by extension, the public.

>And why should we believe that Gates or any other billionaire’s “boldness” necessarily reflects society’s values and needs? Oligarchies aren’t the same as democracies.

>It's my belief that history is a wheel. "Inconsistency is my very essence" -says the wheel- "Rise up on my spokes if you like, but don't complain when you are cast back down into the depths. Good times pass away, but then so do the bad. Mutability is our tragedy, but it is also our hope. The worst of times, like the best, are always passing away".

We've had a food surplus for a long time, why is obesity a relatively recent problem?

That's a really good point and I agree with your solution. I doubt Microsoft would want to do the work involved in creating essentially two versions of Windows, though.

Why? In what way is it better to have a handful of elite workers creating a handful of units sold to a handful of consumers instead of having many ordinary workers producing many units for many consumers?

That darker shade causes them to be mistreated in similar ways by American society.