Almost in violent agreement.

Disagree about the billionaire bit. Accumulates too much power too narrowly. Then one can subvert the market and rule of law. It seems the line lies somewhere between a hundred million and billion dollars at the current value of a dollar.

I am happy and eager to make exceptions on a case by case basis if that billion dollars have been made in exchange of tangible goods and services.

▲

crossbody an hour ago | parent [-]

I just see political influence as separate issue. Make sure they cannot lobby/donate (prison if they do) and problem solved.

Why being tangiable so important? E.g. a billionare made it on physical music CD cs one made it on music streaming? As long as it's legal, why prioritize physical form?

	▲	srean 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's too naive. Laws work differently once you have billions of dollars. They can and will be bent and politicians will be too happy to do that for you. It's win win for both. Ignoring this aspect of the way the world works is living in a fantasy world, no less fantastic than a communist utopia. Oh! I chose my word poorly. Streaming is very much "tangible" in the sense I had intended. "No regret transaction" is perhaps a better term than tangible, for the notion I am trying poorly to capture. Let's take Walter Bright. I would love him to be a billionaire if he isn't. He made many delightful tools, (to entertain oneself and also to pay one's bills by writing programs in a language that is so pleasant ). No party in the transaction would regret the transaction, even in hindsight. There are legal ways to accumulate wealth without exchanging any goods and services. For example, HFT (ought to be called low latency rather than high frequency), speculation on stock market. Derivative markets are zero sum. For one to win someone else has to lose. The wealth so accumulated, has not been created, just redistributed. Wish more companies used D though, so that it's actually feasible to earn your keep writing in D.