AOC believes a system that allows Billionaires to exist is immoral

[JA]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

Wealth inequality isn’t even the primary problem; it’s a side effect. The primary problem is the inequality inherent to the power distribution within capitalism; a system wherein the mass appropriation of labor power, and the “profit” derived from capitalists not paying laborers the full value of their labor (calculated as value upon point of sale). It’s mass theft reinforced through a system of coercive contractual employment (sell your labor or don’t feed yourself/family). So long as the capitalist/proletariat or employee/employer relationship exists, then so, too, will entrenched inequality, a lack of democratic power in a more immediate part of your daily life than government (your job), no control over what you produce (alienation), and countless people being accused of moral failure to excuse the systemic failures of capitalism to meet basic human needs.

[JA]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

Wealth inequality isn’t even the primary problem; it’s a side effect. The primary problem is the inequality inherent to the power distribution within capitalism; a system wherein the mass appropriation of labor power, and the “profit” derived from capitalists not paying laborers the full value of their labor (calculated as value upon point of sale). It’s mass theft reinforced through a system of coercive contractual employment (sell your labor or don’t feed yourself/family). So long as the capitalist/proletariat or employee/employer relationship exists, then so, too, will entrenched inequality, a lack of democratic power in a more immediate part of your daily life than government (your job), no control over what you produce (alienation), and countless people being accused of moral failure to excuse the systemic failures of capitalism to meet basic human needs.

Does your view of labor include marketers, administrators, accountants, and other support staff such as janitors and shipping? (In the latter case, the shipping may itself be a productnpirvjsed from elsewhere) Do all receive equal pieces of the pie? Do you believe the mandate to split profits equally with any additional staff would discourage certain entrepreneurial figures? How does intellectual property factor into this?

Are they performing work without being an owner of the means of production? Is the monetary value they receive in exchange for a product or service, rather than something idle, such as collecting rents on owned property, deriving profits from surplus value from labor, speculation/investment, or interest charges? Then they’re a laborer; they’re a proletariat.

It’s not about receiving equal slices of anything, if you’re going by “what would occur in your socioeconomic system.” You’re still approaching it from a mindset confined to a capitalist mode of production. The question is: is their a social need for it? Do we need housing, food, transportation, janitorial services, accounting work, etc...? If the answer is yes, then those services are required and should be provided. If there is a need, then it should be met. And, whomever meets that need, should retain total control over their labor and the product thereof. If that need requires social labor (such as what can be produced more efficiently by 2+ persons), then the contracted parties should have equal say in their work. All decisions pertaining to labor, production, etc... should be democratically decided by those involved.

[JA]

She’s correct, as always.

Ok then tell me why then would Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos be incentivized to grow their companies if their Net Worth was capped by the government at 1 Billion dollars.

A system that allows billionaires who doesn't pay their employees enough to get by without food stamps to exist is definitively immoral.

It’s cute that OSR almost certainly believes he’s more likely to be rich like Bezos than living in his car, using food stamps, and slaving away full time for below a living wage.

[JA]

The system that allows billionaires to exist is capitalism, however Cortez seems content with the economic system as it is, save for a few reforms. Sad to see that she's just focused on moralising as usual

Wealth inequality isn’t even the primary problem; it’s a side effect. The primary problem is the inequality inherent to the power distribution within capitalism; a system wherein the mass appropriation of labor power, and the “profit” derived from capitalists not paying laborers the full value of their labor (calculated as value upon point of sale). It’s mass theft reinforced through a system of coercive contractual employment (sell your labor or don’t feed yourself/family). So long as the capitalist/proletariat or employee/employer relationship exists, then so, too, will entrenched inequality, a lack of democratic power in a more immediate part of your daily life than government (your job), no control over what you produce (alienation), and countless people being accused of moral failure to excuse the systemic failures of capitalism to meet basic human needs.

Does your view of labor include marketers, administrators, accountants, and other support staff such as janitors and shipping? (In the latter case, the shipping may itself be a productnpirvjsed from elsewhere) Do all receive equal pieces of the pie? Do you believe the mandate to split profits equally with any additional staff would discourage certain entrepreneurial figures? How does intellectual property factor into this?

Are they performing work without being an owner of the means of production? Is the monetary value they receive in exchange for a product or service, rather than something idle, such as collecting rents on owned property, deriving profits from surplus value from labor, speculation/investment, or interest charges? Then they’re a laborer; they’re a proletariat.

It’s not about receiving equal slices of anything, if you’re going by “what would occur in your socioeconomic system.” You’re still approaching it from a mindset confined to a capitalist mode of production. The question is: is their a social need for it? Do we need housing, food, transportation, janitorial services, accounting work, etc...? If the answer is yes, then those services are required and should be provided. If there is a need, then it should be met. And, whomever meets that need, should retain total control over their labor and the product thereof. If that need requires social labor (such as what can be produced more efficiently by 2+ persons), then the contracted parties should have equal say in their work. All decisions pertaining to labor, production, etc... should be democratically decided by those involved.

Lol You truly don’t understand even basic economics do you

Why? Because I don’t agree with you on capitalism? It’s a repugnant economic system that has inherent contradictions that make it incredibly unstable and socially (and environmentally) destructive. Prove me wrong.