There are already several things wrong with the question in itself.
First, no one is self-made.Your parents have had sex (most common method), your mother has fed you 9 months into her body, then put at risk for his own life on the world. Your parents have then dressed, nurtured, protected and learned important skills. You have received education around 12 + years and have used your entire life of infrastructure (roads, public transport, sewer, water pipes, electricity, internet) that has been paid and maintained by the whole company. Then you may have more education, so you learn what people in the sector have discovered before you were born. This knowledge, which you have not created yourself, then use ome to make a plan and then you need to ask someone for money, as a startup. Your parents, going back to your parents, borrowing money from a bank or venture capitalist. When you look around at the billionaires you will notice a number of things: they had either money or a network that provided discounted price services (like Bill Gates, who started in the garage of his parents). That’s nice, but you do need parents who have a garage that they can and want to make available without compensation.
Great inequality creates instability and uncertainty for many.In addition, no one is so special that the situation in which 3 individuals in the US possess as much as the poorest 50% is justified. No, you’re really not that special, you deserve it all. You’re not worth more than 50 million people. In addition, the economy does not grow endlessly and there is a limit to the maximum size, and then as 1 person to take the food from someone else’s mouth, because you want ‘ more ‘ is simply immoral. There’s plenty for everyone, but a few hundred people don’t want to share because they keep a kind of the and like to be ‘ the richest ‘. It’s not that 鈧?0.000 still has any significance for them. How are you so much richer? This must, of course, be done by firing workers and turning customers off, as the margin and growth has been out in the West for decades and is largely explainable because women were going to participate in the economy.
Our embittered mention is yet another attempt to put left-wing opinions and economic theories away as emotionally.They are not. Look at the economic success in the years 50 to 70 and look at the economic policies of the governments of then. It was full of huge government projects, expanding educational opportunities, social Collective agreements and employee protection.
Finally, I would like to say that the indignation towards billionaires is less directed against Bill Gates, Elon Musk and other ‘ entrepreneurs ‘, but more against the rich who have inherited their prosperity.I know only a few people (and these are predominantly anarchocommunists) who feel that excellence, innovation and responsibility are not to be rewarded. For me it makes sense that you may be rewarded for this. I have no problem with millionaires who are doing something special. What I have a problem with is someone who already has so many benefits to perform and to give a useful contribution to society also to give so many resources that they do not even have to do anything to maintain a position. They are rewarded for being born, while most of humanity must contribute something useful to survive anyway, let alone that they are ever truly rewarded.
In addition, I am quite utilitarian when it comes to billionaires.Does society have something to concentrate on so much prosperity in so few people? No, totally not, so there is no reason for me to protect or maintain that status. I even have to make it very difficult to stay billionaire. (not necessarily to be it, but to sit on that money and not spend it).
Is this a question translated from English, “Selfmade super-rich”…?