alt Hacker News> They also get that way by inheriting wealth,
Then their parents must have been billionaires, generating it with investments. If the inheritors divest from those investments, then they incur enormous income taxes. So it's likely to stay.
> by buying favorable laws and regulations,
Then it's not free market. There is no government system that is immune from buying influence and corruption.
> by anticompetitive practices (we've seen a few in the IT sector), and by other problematic behavior.
Nothing is perfect.
> The conversation would be much more interesting if it was about the nuances.
Perhaps, but nuances do not drive prosperity. It would also be more interesting if you showed me a prosperous socialist economy.
Replies
> Then it's not free market. There is no government system that is immune from buying influence and corruption
The point is that if you're forced to put your money into industries / r&d etc then you don't have enough money to bribe people / political parties / news outlets etc.
Your Manichean divide between 'free market' and 'socialist' doesn't reflect reality. You seem obsessed.
> nothing is perfect
The same could be said about anything, including free market economics. It's meaningless.
> nuances do not drive prosperity
They certainly do. The differences are often in the details.
> Perhaps
That's honest, at least ...
> the inheritors divest from those investments, then they incur enormous income taxes.
But isn't this sidestepped buy the "buy, borrow, die" approach, often criticized?
https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/03/tax-loop...