Ten billionaires reap $400B boost to wealth during pandemic

A related Fresh Air episode this month: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;12&#x2F;23&#x2F;949578530&#x2F;how-covid-19-became-a-tremendous-windfall-for-the-ultra-rich" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2020&#x2F;12&#x2F;23&#x2F;949578530&#x2F;how-covid-19-became...</a><p>The guest was an heir to the Oscar Mayer fortune who actually gave up his money and stated a non-profit focused on inequality; the discussion was pretty hand-wavy about solutions, but still interesting (IMHO)

I know this is usually brought up as a clearly bad thing, but I have a non-rhetorical question: what do we do about it?<p>In this case, the value of the company Bezos created, Amazon, has gone up because it provided a useful service during the pandemic. If we decide we want to tax that, it seems like the only means we&#x27;d have available is to force him to give up shares in his company. Are we essentially saying a company&#x27;s success entitles the government to take over ownership?

This is what happens when the state acts like your nanny. Overzealous local restrictions on businesses is what led to this. The market would have dealt with the threat of infection perfectly. But it wasn&#x27;t allowed to. And it shows that any sort of government regulation, regardless of intent, will always hurt the small guy, while the Bezos&#x27; of the world will find a way to profit from it.

Yes, the stock market is being pumped up by government fiat. What’s the point?

How much is “actual value creation” and how much is “irrational exuberance”? Or is there no difference?

There&#x27;s nothing wrong with reaping the benefits when you are providing people with direly needed goods that local governments foolishly prohibit small shops from selling.