Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

Post by thinkloop » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #151

thinkloop wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor person has more choices because money was forced from a rich person to them (please keep in mind that I am not against this, it is likely the better system). But these are extremely different kinds of freedom. If you have an example of how the poor person was forced to be poor it would be important here.

You are working with a politically loaded conception of what 'force' is. The fact that we live under a mode of production in which one class of people have a monopoly over the means of production, and everyone else is destitute and must sell themselves to access the conditions of life, is not a natural state of things which does not require force, and from which any deviation is some kind of violation of nature.

Post by sykh » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #199

sykh wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You added a phrase that I did not write. as just jealous I did not write this or imply this. People who struggle with food or housing are not merely jealous. They have real concerns and need. The discussion I referred was not about such people or conditions. I was responding to the notion that inequality does not matter as much now because conditions for the those at the bottom have improved. Clearly the implication…

People who struggle with food Now you are mis-quoting. It was fairly obvious what you were implying.

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:59 PM UTC

cal5k wrote: post #132

angarg12 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People spend less as a percentage of income on food and housing I've lived in several places in the last few years and this couldn't be further away from truth. I spend the same or more % of my income in housing than my parents did, and I get much less for it. They were able to buy a 4 bedroom flat in town working blue collar jobs, and me, with an engineering degree, probably could aspire to a 2 bedroom out of town…

I totally empathize with your situation, but globally the numbers are irrefutable. That's not to say that many people aren't still struggling - we can always do better, but I think there's reason to be optimistic.

Post by eeZah7Ux » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:04 PM UTC

mentos wrote: post #119

cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

I think the biggest mistake people make when counting this wealth is that if it is hoarded and never spent then it might as well not exist and should be viewed as anti-inflationary. What if all the billionaires in the world decided 'let me just hit delete on all of the zeroes in my bank account' what affect would that have on the rest of the world?

Post by audunw » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:08 PM UTC

defertoreptar wrote: post #89

psyc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It couldn't possibly not matter, because wealth is not only standard of living, but also power. At the highest level, the wealthy are not simply comfortable. They have the power to shape and organize aspects of the economy, supply chain, and the laws. That has to matter in some way beyond having one's material needs met or not.

That's a good argument, and to many it's an argument for wealth redistribution. I prefer to look at it instead as an argument for limiting the powers of government in order to limit its susceptibility to corruption.