Its true

The lease capitalistic community, which would be closest to pure communism, is the isolated Amazon rainforest tribes, and also the Sentinelese Islanders. Their standard of a living is extremely low. But I’m sure everybody gets an equal portion of monkey meat to eat.

Billionaire make lives better for all. Rich people need to spend their money on frivolous unnecessary things. Rich people did not need televisions, cars, telephones, air conditioning, air travel, home commuters, car phones, and much more. When they wasted money on these things, all of which were not needed at the time, technology advanced. These things are now all indispensable for the middle class. What future items would be delayed by taxing the rich. Billionaires make your life easier. Now it’s space vacations. Frivolous things become necessities for the middle class.

Very true.

2025 and some muppets still believe this bullshit, which is older than the majority on this site.
propaganda in full effect,because it is effective and works brilliantly.
obviously---> comment section

When taxes are CUT total revenue goes up. Every time. So, why do Democrats want to raise taxes? They believe sound bites are better than common sense economics.

Without billionaires, those green Teslas wouldn’t be saving us from climate change and you wouldn’t have all sorts of cheap stuff to buy on Amazon. And tens of thousands of people would not have a job.

More like millions.

Likely

It is. Thats why billionaires are a good thing. In a world without the rich, everyone is poor. In capitalism, everyone is rich in comparison.

The most accurate part of the statement is that in a capitalist system, the potential exists for a higher overall standard of living compared to systems with less economic freedom, but this does not automatically mean that the presence of billionaires is inherently "a good thing." The impact of billionaires on society is complex and depends on various factors, including their investment decisions, philanthropic activities, and the broader economic and political context.

For the rich to exist, there must be a system of trade where people can individually gain wealth. That is a fact. Under such a system, all of society benefits, as all members of society can gain wealth and all prosper. Billionaires are a result of this system, thus a sign of societal wealth.

The existence of a system of trade where people can individually gain wealth is a prerequisite for the accumulation of wealth, including the potential for individuals to become very wealthy. While such systems can generate overall wealth and improve living standards, the distribution of that wealth is not always equal, and the existence of billionaires is not a sole indicator of societal wealth.

While of course not the sole indicator, they are a strong one. Also, why must wealth be distributed equally?

The statement "the distribution of wealth is not always equal" is in response to your claim that "all of society benefits, as all members can gain wealth and all prosper". This is not necessarily accurate, and again the impact solely depends on various factors.

Perhaps, the potential of wealth may exist in society for "some" to achieve depending on investment decisions, philanthropic activities, and the broader economic and political context.

The key in that is investment decisions. All can build wealth. All do prosper.

Human nature is a spectrum of abilities and traits, resulting in everybody’s life being different. It’s been that way, and always will be that way.