What are Bezos and Zuckerberg supposed to have contributed to society?
It’s true that Amazon improved access to shopping and reduced costs, especially distribution costs. But all the other consequences — monopoly power, destruction of local commerce, concentration of wealth — benefit only him, not society. And I don’t see the overall balance tipping in society’s favor.
Yet many of these billionaires that the leftist crackpots like granny Warren with her 12 millions want to destroy, get funded by these billionaires. It really is inexplicable how the billionaires seem to be captured by the democrat islamocommies.
I’m not a leftist, and I’m certainly not arguing that billionaires should be “destroyed.” I’m simply questioning the idea that extreme concentrations of wealth and power automatically benefit society.
Recognizing that Amazon improved logistics and accessibility doesn’t mean ignoring the negative effects of monopolistic power, weakened local commerce, labor concerns, or political influence.
That’s not “communism.” It’s a legitimate democratic debate.
What you said WAS leftist communist tropes. Bezos and Zuckerberg made their money by coming up with an idea that people were willing to pay for. You’re saying they shouldn’t get to have that money. So how would you wrest it from them and by who? Three house Bernie the millionaire? Granny Warren the airline killer ? Pelosi? They stole their riches from the taxpayer. They are the ones who take not make.
The left has no solutions beyond taking it away from someone else. None of their ideas has helped American citizens. In fact, their ideas have impoverished millions and dumbed people down. And none of those grifters employed anyone from their own hard labor.
How many work for Amazon? Or Meta? Or Ken Griffon?
You seem to have completely misunderstood my point. I never said Bezos or Zuckerberg should be “destroyed,” nor did I say their wealth should simply be seized by someone else. That is your framing, not mine.
My point was about whether extreme concentrations of wealth and power are automatically good for society. That is a legitimate question in any democracy, not a “communist trope.”
You also accuse me of using clichés, but your reply is full of them: “leftist crackpots,” “communist tropes,” “granny Warren,” “they only take, not make.” None of that actually addresses the issue.
Yes, Amazon and Meta employ many people and created services people use. That does not mean they should be immune from criticism regarding monopoly power, labor conditions, influence over politics, or the damage done to local businesses and public discourse.
A society can recognize innovation and entrepreneurship while still asking whether too much private power concentrated in too few hands creates problems. That is not communism. It is basic democratic scrutiny.
What are Bezos and Zuckerberg supposed to have contributed to society?
It’s true that Amazon improved access to shopping and reduced costs, especially distribution costs. But all the other consequences — monopoly power, destruction of local commerce, concentration of wealth — benefit only him, not society. And I don’t see the overall balance tipping in society’s favor.
As for Zuckerberg’s empire, I only see harm.
Yet many of these billionaires that the leftist crackpots like granny Warren with her 12 millions want to destroy, get funded by these billionaires. It really is inexplicable how the billionaires seem to be captured by the democrat islamocommies.
I’m not a leftist, and I’m certainly not arguing that billionaires should be “destroyed.” I’m simply questioning the idea that extreme concentrations of wealth and power automatically benefit society.
Recognizing that Amazon improved logistics and accessibility doesn’t mean ignoring the negative effects of monopolistic power, weakened local commerce, labor concerns, or political influence.
That’s not “communism.” It’s a legitimate democratic debate.
What you said WAS leftist communist tropes. Bezos and Zuckerberg made their money by coming up with an idea that people were willing to pay for. You’re saying they shouldn’t get to have that money. So how would you wrest it from them and by who? Three house Bernie the millionaire? Granny Warren the airline killer ? Pelosi? They stole their riches from the taxpayer. They are the ones who take not make.
The left has no solutions beyond taking it away from someone else. None of their ideas has helped American citizens. In fact, their ideas have impoverished millions and dumbed people down. And none of those grifters employed anyone from their own hard labor.
How many work for Amazon? Or Meta? Or Ken Griffon?
You seem to have completely misunderstood my point. I never said Bezos or Zuckerberg should be “destroyed,” nor did I say their wealth should simply be seized by someone else. That is your framing, not mine.
My point was about whether extreme concentrations of wealth and power are automatically good for society. That is a legitimate question in any democracy, not a “communist trope.”
You also accuse me of using clichés, but your reply is full of them: “leftist crackpots,” “communist tropes,” “granny Warren,” “they only take, not make.” None of that actually addresses the issue.
Yes, Amazon and Meta employ many people and created services people use. That does not mean they should be immune from criticism regarding monopoly power, labor conditions, influence over politics, or the damage done to local businesses and public discourse.
A society can recognize innovation and entrepreneurship while still asking whether too much private power concentrated in too few hands creates problems. That is not communism. It is basic democratic scrutiny.
Whatever.
If you’re splainin, you’re losin. You need to move on dude.
Ciao.