The original comment I replied too was how a billionaire buying an Apple was destroying/taking things from the system - when the reality is that the billionaire traded a bit of value, and so it’s just changing ‘columns’ in the system, not being destroyed in the process, but rather now the farmers/retailers/middlemen now have some cash instead of too many apples, etc.
What is the better alternative?
Because it’s actually in their interest to buy fewer real goods, and more ownership - assuming the ownership is of productive assets. That’s how they became billionaires in the first place. By using their Capital (literally excess assets/buying power) to acquire more assets/buying power, or grow the value of their assets/buying power. Yes, that includes the orchard example above.
In the USSR, you could only buy things approved by bureaucrats who ensured the ‘right things’ were available for sale, and people didn’t get jealous, and ownership of most classes of assets was restricted to the state.
There were no private billionaires in the USSR, but a lot of administrators that had to play political games - with those on the bottom being stuck with the leftovers.
Notably, for those complaining about the US military industrial complex - military spending in the USSR as a percent of GDP dwarfed even the US. (Albeit much lower in actual value, because the USSR’s economy was relatively tiny)
One could easily argue that the biggest priority of the USSR was in fact military spending - far more so than the US even at its peak, and they happily threw everyone else but the elites under the bus to afford it.
History rhymes for a reason, and people are similar all over.
What is the better alternative?
Because it’s actually in their interest to buy fewer real goods, and more ownership - assuming the ownership is of productive assets. That’s how they became billionaires in the first place. By using their Capital (literally excess assets/buying power) to acquire more assets/buying power, or grow the value of their assets/buying power. Yes, that includes the orchard example above.
In the USSR, you could only buy things approved by bureaucrats who ensured the ‘right things’ were available for sale, and people didn’t get jealous, and ownership of most classes of assets was restricted to the state.
There were no private billionaires in the USSR, but a lot of administrators that had to play political games - with those on the bottom being stuck with the leftovers.
Notably, for those complaining about the US military industrial complex - military spending in the USSR as a percent of GDP dwarfed even the US. (Albeit much lower in actual value, because the USSR’s economy was relatively tiny)
One could easily argue that the biggest priority of the USSR was in fact military spending - far more so than the US even at its peak, and they happily threw everyone else but the elites under the bus to afford it.
History rhymes for a reason, and people are similar all over.