I don't get where the stopping point is. When does using your resources to gain more resources start to become immoral? You concede that the nameless workers ought to be capturing some economic power, which acknowledges that it's a basic human right to accrue economic power. What you won't seem to entertain is the possibility that an investor is fairly accruing economic power by using his existing economic power to fuel another profitable enterprise. If you keep repeating that process, your capital compounds, but there's no principled reason to say that any step in that process involved extractive / exploitative gains.
Why don’t we start with just raising the floor on expectations for care such that it’s impossible to be involuntarily homeless or die from a preventable disease
We can probably figure it out faster once the majority of the population is not grasping for air
This is imminently possible today but the social will isn’t there
Buffett has earned economic power by proving he uses it efficiently. He clearly has a good sense of where to put money such that it creates disproportionate value for society at large, where 'good' here means better than millions of others attempting the same. His investments encourage and empower companies to think in longer terms. He has pledged to give it all to charity and has already made good on a record breaking 50B of that pledge. He's not a great foil to use for criticizing capitalism.
>There should exist no single person with the amount of economic power that Buffett has
Why not, then? From a consequentialist utilitarian perspective, we seem to be much better off with Buffett being allowed to do what he wants with his money. From a deontological rights perspective, we reach the same conclusion.
Should anyone be allowed the political power of a US president or senator or mayor?
>contracts are based on laws and capital writes the laws
This seems to lack substance. If I agree to do task X in exchange for reward Y, enforced by the law saying I have to honor what I agree to, and you think I should be getting Y+Z, is your issue really that the law was written by capital? AFAIK, most contract law restricts what I'm allowed to give away and guarantees that I get a minimum in return. Is there a particular law governing contracts that, if removed, would move things in the direction you prefer? Because otherwise I'd think you'd be quite happy with the 'you can't trade your basic rights away, you can't sell yourself into slavery, you must make at least minimum wage, etc.' that we've already got (and that you allege capital is resposible for) and seeking an additional 'you must capture at least 75% of the value you create' or something. Unless you're fundamentally opposed to contracts in general?
I’m opposed to economic systems where people will make decisions based on a massive power imbalance and fear of destitution
We have more than enough resources for that to be true, it’s a matter of will and reckoning how the deck is stacked structurally to actively fight anything that reduces the power of the luxury class
Seems you’re assuming this premise. Who exactly do you think would or should muster economic decisions? On what basis would they act?
The line of argument you’re developing is a well-explored garden path. I encourage you to continue developing the idea but do not embrace advocacy, for that is where you will lose your way.
There should exist no single person with the amount of economic power that Buffet has.
That is economic power that someone else DOESNT have that they are creating but not capturing
With the only argument being “but they have a contract” - totally ignoring that contracts are based on laws and capital writes the laws