Distribution and contribution

#2668

OK, so we have a bunch of billionaires (remember that a billion is one thousand millions). But it is clear that none of them would have that wealth if the rest of the population was much smaller and their consumption was much less. Why then, since everyone is necessary to create that wealth, should the profit not be shared back with all those who contributed? Capital is surplus .from activity of a whole society owned by some but not by all. The key leverage point to Shane the system is more likely in the idea of “owned” than in the idea of “profit/”. Probably the sheer size of the population is an amplifier of undeserved distortions in distribution.*

• the word source is really interesting https://www.etymonline.com + tribuere "to pay, assign, grant," also "allot among the tribes or to a tribe," from tribus (see tribe).) It has echoes of tribute, implying a much more complex relationship among the parties and just owned. Given more than due.