wouldn't have grown, people wouldn't have been hired and his philanthropy wouldn't be possible.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. Capitalism has it's challenges but assuming anyone that has more money than you is inherently evil is probably not a good starting point for evolving it ;)

..capital in. There are certain causes that governments will choose not to fund, Philanthropy has long stepped up to fill that need. Warren Buffett will give away tens of billions of dollars to worthy causes when he dies. If you took all his money at $10m he would have stopped investing, companies..

Possible. All systems have their pros & cons. But innovation is generally fuelled by competition. Solving a problem for someone and creating a business to solve it for more people is not inherently bad. You can create jobs without 'exploiting' workers. Investors deserve returns if they put risk...

The Chinese economy started to boom when they opened their economy, but they still keep tight government controls and ownership. What they have achieved in the last 3 decades is remarkable. However, it is dependent on having the right people in power. They have got this very wrong in the past.

Agreed. All big organisations have waste and projects that not all constituents understand or care about. Government is no different but it should be held to account. Especially when it has got into so much debt.

Companies that perform badly can do OK for a while, but they don't last. Executives and shareholders lose out when companies collapse. Badly run government entities can run forever funded by tax payers. That isn't necessarily a good thing.

Surprised you would be a fan of a country pouring resources into military at the expense of it's people? Standard of living in the Soviet Union didn't come anywhere close to that of capitalist countries.

Partially in agreement with you here. Countries like Singapore have managed this incredibly well. Other countries have a very poor track record. Govt typically do not run well and competition drives innovation.

OK. If you knew you could cure a rare form of cancer but it would cost $100m and it was too niche for governments to fund, how would you achieve that? (80% of the worlds philanthropy comes from the top 20%)
What happens if the company is running at a loss? Should employees also chip in to help?

Exactly. It is an exchange. Employees are paid for results (just as businesses are by clients). The average employee is not being 'exploited'.
What alternative do you suggest?
Stop trying to solve problems in the world?

OK, but I'm trying to get to first principals here, are you saying all jobs created are bad? Or just jobs created by people you don't like? If I apply for a job and sell my time/skills/knowledge but don't give 100%, am I exploiting the business owner? What are YOU doing to improve things for others?

To the question I asked, do you think that everyone who creates jobs should go to jail? I assume you want to make the world a better place (whatever that looks like to you)? If people want to join you in that mission, but need money to do so, and you can provide that, should you go to jail?

So, in your view of the world, if he has created that job in the first place, to solve a problem for a greater number of people, then he should go to jail?

Were you angry when AI surfaced an interesting video on YT or Netflix? Were you angry when AI surfaced the item you were looking for on Amazon? What about when it gave you the results you were looking for on Google? Or if it spots your cancer 10 years before a physician would?