I follow it partially -- in that when several individuals hoard the majority of money, it leaves less for everyone else, which is profoundly undemocratic in a society that aspires to be market-driven.
Money supply is a zero-sum game - yes, you can print more, but that devalues what exists in circulation, so the have-nots remain the have-nots, and the haves remain the haves.
I think the existence of billionaires is absurd, and a giant red flag indicating that this in fact is a broken system. No single person should have command over such a disproportionate amount of resources, if only because not a single person can possibly choose well how to employ such resources.
Money is violence (in that it compels people to do what they otherwise wouldn't) and billionaires are grotesquely mega-violent individuals.
Money supply is a zero-sum game - yes, you can print more, but that devalues what exists in circulation, so the have-nots remain the have-nots, and the haves remain the haves.
I think the existence of billionaires is absurd, and a giant red flag indicating that this in fact is a broken system. No single person should have command over such a disproportionate amount of resources, if only because not a single person can possibly choose well how to employ such resources.
Money is violence (in that it compels people to do what they otherwise wouldn't) and billionaires are grotesquely mega-violent individuals.