You do make some very good points, but I disagree on one.
>Now look at how few companies in the EU become worth 1B compared to the US. That low ratio also applies to smaller (and larger) companies.
Money is power/control, and not having a concentration of wealth is a good thing for society. Granted many of the ultra wealthy also support giving away their wealth - but (IMHO) the Benevolent dictator model for social change is indicative of a failure of government. I think there is wastage of allocated capital both when its done by elected officials and also with the ultra wealthy.
> not having a concentration of wealth is a good thing for society
The US has higher income for median, for the poor. for those in poverty, for every decile, by a decent margin.
For example, US median income is around 46k. Germany is a reasonable first world country, yet median income is 33k (all in PPP dollars). This is huge. Most of the first world has similarly low income, at every level.
If your argument against income is that some people make a lot, so instead make everyone poorer, I find that a weak argument. It is a common outcome of poorly designed policies that those focusing on the rich or poor but with a bad understanding of history and econ end up making. I'd rather policymakers learn econ and history and learn that things like rent control, or various forms of taxes, have consequences that often hurt those they claim to want to help.
> I think there is wastage of allocated capital both when its done by elected officials and also with the ultra wealthy.
You think the average person would allocate capital better than those that understand investment and growth, and are willing to risk their own resources? There's a reason govt funds vastly underperform general markets - those with less to lose (i.e., those playing with other's money) likely fare worse at allocation than those that have more skin in the game. I know that most workers I tend to hang out with have a terrible understanding of how econ/macro/finance or even starting and funding businesses works.
Also those countries that tend strongly into socialism instead of capitalism have not done as well as those with strong capitalist bases (i.e., all first world countries - where people can own the means of production and operate for their own profit). If capital were allocated so much better in the places you seem to want, where is the evidence that it works? There's 200+ countries; if it worked, you'd think it would be winning somewhere....
>If your argument against income is that some people make a lot, so instead make everyone poorer, I find that a weak argument
How did what I say in any way relate with making everyone poorer? You're just assuming what my position is, and also assuming the outcome based on what happened in other random countries, in a completely different setting.
I'm against concentrations of power because the government should not have a competitor when it comes to power. We elect the government, and in a functioning democracy the government's policies are decided on by voters. This in effect ensures only the people get to decide who govern them. There should never be another entity which can out compete a government when it comes to power and influence.
>I'd rather policymakers learn econ and history and learn that things like rent control, or various forms of taxes, have consequences that often hurt those they claim to want to help.
Its a common talking point, but in reality that is just an opinion masquerading as fact. It presumes everything in economics is an inarguable fact. It is not. Humans have been successfully governing themselves under various systems of governance. Anyway, that itself is a 4 hour debate, so I'll just leave it at that. If you want the final word you have it, I won't argue with it ;)
> Its a common talking point, but in reality that is just an opinion masquerading as fact.
Spoken like someone ignorant of history and econ. Rent control is such a screw up, over and over, that it's a basic part of econ 101, yet politicians and everyday people want and obtain it again and again, each time to the same outcome - less housing and less affordable housing.
Care to point out where rent control has been a smashing success, and compare that to places it has been a dismal failure? This is not opinion - this is fact. Or simply read some survey papers - google has plenty.
A good tax example is something like the Swedish Financial Transaction Tax [1], which was a major screw up, yet has been tried in around 15 countries, all with similar screw ups, yet is popular (see Bernie Sanders version from ~2020 for example). There are ample academic papers detailing all of these.
Also fact. Go ahead and explain how the Swiss tax was a success.
People ignorant of history and econ, and most importantly how econ works, continually repeat stupid ideas. Maybe this time magic will work because they believe it?
You are a prime example of this problem with your claim. Yes, there is some play in econ, but it's no where near something one can just wish away, yet people ignorant of it try.
You can believe in your ideology, the problem is you have to convince others if you want to do anything democratic, and so far you haven't. I said I won't argue with you so I wont ;) Good luck.
>Now look at how few companies in the EU become worth 1B compared to the US. That low ratio also applies to smaller (and larger) companies.
Money is power/control, and not having a concentration of wealth is a good thing for society. Granted many of the ultra wealthy also support giving away their wealth - but (IMHO) the Benevolent dictator model for social change is indicative of a failure of government. I think there is wastage of allocated capital both when its done by elected officials and also with the ultra wealthy.