If development of that product and setting up of production took 3-4 years for this enterprise then such high profits can be explained, but it will only last for 3-4 years(that’s the time it takes for late entrees to catch up). And during these 3-4 years this company was recuperating the capital investment and compensate the risk taken by the investors. You the worker working for $18 per hour do not deserve a penny more than what your labor is worth in the market unless you were bearing the risk of the investment.
That’s the biggest difference between Socialists and Capitalists, the former refuse to count risk bearing as any form of labor or effort or input. Somehow the capitalist should bear all the risk but still pay a share from his profits to his non-risk bearing workers, and if he makes losses then he should simply suck it up.

There is nothing wrong with true inequality- there is everything wrong with ‘artificial’ inequality which is what we’ve got. I had a job where I could assemble a widget in an hour for $200 that ordinarily cost $500- so I was saving $300 per hour for my company, and getting $18 per hour for the labor. A starving Angolan could have done the same- his inability to produce that is because he doesn’t work for that company and he doesn’t have access to the tools or resources. He is not ‘less productive’, he is simply marginalized.

Capitalism is unjust as it currently exists.

I believe I should read first this concept of “Existentialism” , may be this article then would make more sense to me.

Well, I was referring to Satya Prakash, who commented above me.

You dont need to read existentialism. It is the prototype of objectivism/indiviualism. Ayn Rand herself wanted to name her philosophy as Existentialism, but she refrained because t was already use by Nietzsche, if you will read it, it will be good, but if you won’t it won’t be a loss.
Roark or Galt can be said as Superman/Overman.
Every keating want to be a Roark, every Jim Taggart want to be Galt

My point was that inequality doesn’t demonstrate anything about a society, you could be better in an unequal society and you could be worse in a equal society.

Here you are completely wrong my friend, your whole above statement is conflicting in itself. Inequality exactly describes what a society is. Society is not an entity independent of individuals. Infact existence of society is just a coincidence, a mathematical abstraction. If I am worse in an unequal society, then there are better people than me in it. If I am worse in an equal society, then every individual is worse in the society. So here inequality completely describes what a society is. There is only one way to make a statement or judging a society and that is by making statement or judging individuals who live in this society and not making statement about society considering it as an independent seperate entity.

Actually what I was searching in the article was this or a version of this:

Every individual is an independent entity. The instant you start comparing, one man becomes far better than other. One man is Scientist, another is businessman, another is artist and another is crippled crawling insect by his choice and capabitiy. What a man produces, is the representative of his wealth. Since different men have different amount of produce and so the wealth and by their own choices and capabilities. And this is why inequality rather than being good or bad is just simply a mathematical expression or figure, which simply is right. If this figure is not right, then there is something wrong with this society and it should be corrected.

Well I didn’t bother to cover inequality being bad because people already have way too many examples and beliefs about that. So I focused completely on showing that inequality can be good.

That’s what I questioned, you only cared to show inequality as good in the article (and you assumed as the article’s name itself indicates, there are many examples claiming inequality as bad). But you did not care to show anywhere inequlity is neither good nor bad, OR inequality simply does not tell anything about being good or bad.

In our society there is no such human being who knows each and everything about the economy. Nobody can really be that accurate, so that situation is highly unrealistic. But it tells us something. it tells us that inequality of wealth isn’t really a objectively bad or good thing.

In the above paragraph, what did you mean by “It”. I could not understand it.

Sure Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and all the successful Stock market Investors and businessmen would not wanna live in this economy, but common people like you and me are much better off in this city than we are in our current situations.

What do you mean by “common people like you and me” here?… I hate this kind of notion in an article written by a person who claim to be libertarian. There are no common people in a libertarian society. Even your superman/overman did exist in the society, he can not make anyone common. Let him be a superman but a man is complete in himself, he is so far away from your superman and and any other man that, no one can even touch him, unless he himself wants to be touched. My this paragraph is bit out of context, but I hated your notion of common people and I put it.

@Unpretentious Diva

The idea of Superman, or Overman comes from Nietzsche, it comes from philosophy of Existentialism, it comes from philosophy of Advaita Vedanta too.
Author here is trying to discuss about Economic Overman/Superman.

I believe I should read first this concept of “Existentialism” , may be this article then would make more sense to me.

what if everyone wants to become the superman?

In my society, everybody want’s to be a superman, but none is able and they never will be.

The idea of Superman, or Overman comes from Nietzsche, it comes from philosophy of Existentialism, it comes from philosophy of Advaita Vedanta too.
Author here is trying to discuss about Economic Overman/Superman.
There can be various castes of Overman/Superman too. One can be Overman of Economic world, One can be Overman of scintific world, one can be Overman of philosophical world, One can be Overman of Spiritual world.
Nietzsche believed that Jesus Christ was an Overman/Superman and he considere that Gautam Buddha was also an Overman.
He further believed that there will be some scientific overman too.

Now, an economic overman cannot rule world by himself, nor can a philosophical or spirtiual or even scientific overman can rule or control the world. That is, even if there are some overmen, people will remain free and that will be the reason for their progress. In No way an overman can control all human, or even a significant part of world. But yes, because of his greatness, because of good qualities that makes him an Overman like Jesus Christ, he will certainly gain a lot number of voluntary fans/disciples, like Jesus Christ got or Buddha got.

If every one will try to be Overman, they may and they will fail, but because of their proper tries, the society will improve. Everybody should try to be an Overman, to be the best of his abilities, it is always good. But trying doesn’t mean being.

How exactly this Superman is different from dictator? How can you ensure that once he gets all the power and resources at his disposal won’t exploit citizens of society for his own good?

That’s an illogical question, I mean in a free market society he has the POWER to do everything with everybody’s consent(Is Warren Buffett misusing his power or acting like a dictator when he makes a decision to move Coca Cola factories to China shutting down factory you work in?)

Anything he needs is done by buying and selling. If he needs a palace for himself, he will have to hire people and pay them work make a palace for him. IF he wants to build a Pyramid for himself, he will have to hire people to build it for him, he can’t just make people do it involuntarily.

Lets take an extreme example, If lets say he wants some guy’s wife and he threatens to fire her husband if she doesn’t sleep with him. If she disagrees and he fires her husband, now he has created unemployment, a guy willing to work but has no job, that’s actually a violation of our presupposition that he knows every risk, in this case he didn’t know that his actions will create an unemployed guy.

Lets say for some reason if he keeps on doing those kinds of ‘dictatorial’ things, he will end up creating enough number of people who are not working for him(perhaps even more because he is pissing WAY more number of people), and they will start a competing company.

I really don’t understand why this example was illustrated in support of – Free Market economy which is supposed to work on healthy competition among different service providers…… right?

That example was given as a society with complete inequality(Gini coefficient would be 100, one person having all the wealth, 0 GINI Coefficient means perfect equality, everybody having equal wealth), YET this society is in no way less free, or less prosperous(in fact our imaginary superman will make it more prosperous than all the current societies).

Sure in a realistic society its not possible that one guy manages to have all the information,so there will be competition and everything. But again don’t make the mistake of giving some sort of intrinsic good value to ‘competition’. Just because a society is having competition that doesn’t mean its better in any way then a society with only one provider(my point is this information is incomplete to determine conclusively).

@August Said:

Even your concept of superman did make free market society and a socialist society better, where did it prove that inequality is not objectively good or bad?

Well I didn’t bother to cover inequality being bad because people already have way too many examples and beliefs about that. So I focused completely on showing that inequality can be good. MY example of that society is a completely unequal society. It has perfect inequality in terms of ownership of wealth(its still not perfectly unequal in terms of income). This perfect inequality society is actually better than our equality society. That’s what I showed. My point was that inequality doesn’t demonstrate anything about a society, you could be better in an unequal society and you could be worse in a equal society.

What I interpreted, you were trying to say The Superman even being richer than everyone, made whole society’s lives better, so even he is far richer than others, his inequality with other people is actually good.

No, I said Superman knowing everything WILL be more richer than everybody else, and he will become rich by using his knowledge to the best of the people(the only way he could become rich). MY assumption about the society wasn’t that he is richer than everybody else and then ponder the reasons why he was richer, I PRESUMED that he knows more, then he become rich by directing people’s labor to most profitable least risky ventures, by directing resources which he will end up owning, into their most productive use.

I think what you need to understand to understand my article is how a Capitalist society plans. When in a stock market a company A’s shares are go to the floor then the market is trying to let that Company know that its ventures are very inefficient for the current use of its capital goods. Buy selling stocks of that company the market lets the company know that it needs to either modify its business or declare bankruptcy and have its resources/capital goods used by another company.
It may be very possible that I presumed somethings everybody understands about market(because I have covered it many times before) and they may not, in that case you may read my earlier articles.

Help Poor farmers, speculate on grain
Why speculation is indespensible for free markets

Even your concept of superman did make free market society and a socialist society better, where did it prove that inequality is not objectively good or bad?

What I interpreted, you were trying to say The Superman even being richer than everyone, made whole society’s lives better, so even he is far richer than others, his inequality with other people is actually good.

I think this article is incomplete with respect to the message it wanted to convey.