Please respond to the argument that the 'surplus' belongs to the capitalist to compensate him for putting his money at risk. If company folds, they all lose their jobs but the capitalist also loses his capital. Maybe he doesn't deserve all the surplus. Of course the degree of wealth concentration has been a ripoff. but in theory, if A works harder than B and has capital, it's A's right to decide the amount of surplus he keeps. If B doesn't like it then B can go work somewhere else. This is in theory of course. 2nd question: It capitalism ultimately unstable, like an avalanche? Once A has capital, he earns passive income. Both A and B work hard and pay their bills with income. But now A has passive income that builds up to buy yet another house to rent or factory etc. So B goes nowhere and A gets richer and richer?
'surplus' belongs to the capitalist for putting money at risk.
Do you like this suggestion?