I didn't say that was impossible. It can happen from time to time. But Jobs, Zuck, Musk etc. are terrible examples of it, because there's a third "type 2", besides investments and loans, that I should have mentioned. It is employment.

An employer, too, isn't going to employ someone in the long run unless they make more money on them than they pay them. Jobs, Zuck's etc. investors succeeded (well, on average) in getting back more money than they gave out. But Jobs, Zuck etc. got rich by convincing a lot of others -- their employees -- to take the same kind of deal: make me richer than I make you.

▲

crostlybostly a day ago | parent [-]

The reverse is also true though. I am not going to work for you unless you pay me more for my time than it is otherwise worth.

▲

vintermann a day ago | parent [-]

That's still a "Want something more than money" or rather a "Want money more than something" trade, the one I've called type 1. Not a trade money for more money, type 2. It does nothing to counteract the problem of accelerating accumulation.

▲

crostlybostly a day ago | parent [-]

But if a billionaire pays you $100k and makes $110k in revenue the inequality went down, right?

Their wealth went up by 10k and yours went up by 100k.

▲

vintermann a day ago | parent [-]

Sure, but now ask: who gave you that $110k, and why? There are two reasons people may give you money (not counting charity)...

	▲	crostlybostly 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I dunno, just seems like an okay system to me. We both get richer, I press some buttons on a keyboard then get paid and go hang out with my family. I am sure it could be better, but there is no organization I trust any more than corporations these days. USG is untrustworthy. Religious institutions untrustworthy. Academic institutions are untrustworthy. A typical American likely believes in anti-vax, MAGA, Religion, or other conspiracy, so its not like you can trust the broad population. So yeah being able to work for the corporate overlords looks pretty appealing.