131–140 of 162 posts
I did some quick math: the top .001% consumes as much as bottom 3% of Americans cumulatively. It’s high but it gives an accurate picture of how bad the real problem is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concentration of wealth isn’t a problem so much for poverty, because without doing something to increase the production of things people need, having more money would just result in higher prices. Like you said, the 0.001% aren’t consuming half the world’s food production, so redistributing there money alone would not solve world hunger. A bigger problem as that fewer and fewer have any say in the direction of so…
I agree with your overall position but I disagree on the first point. Wealth is ownership, ownership is control of value. Allocating more (not all) value away from SaaS companies and into food security or education is a good thing and would make things better for everyone.
You are already doing that with your votes, the American government is already investing massive amounts into education and food security. Private investments would never do this, even poor people wouldn't invest in poor ROI endeavors, poor people invest in the same things as rich people they just invest less, so the wealth of the rich doesn't matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does redistribution solve material problems with the poor? My post says exactly that it is zero sum - you have to take away investments in big companies and drive it into perhaps unproductive places. It’s not so clear that this is a good thing.
1. It isn't 0-sum (see the effect of Henry Ford paying his workers more for 1 obvious example). 2. But that's irrelevant, because the reason some people are poor is not lack of resources in the whole economy. We have way more stuff than we need even if it was 0-sum 3. Also I wasn't even talking about eliminating poor people, I was talking about ensuring poor people have a say in what the society does.
What is that effect? He just made a silly joke comment, but there is no way paying his workers more made him any money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is zero sum unless you can prove that redistribution will increase productivity. If you can prove it then it is an obvious thing to do. It actually isn't that obvious otherwise we would see more productivity from western Europe. >But that's irrelevant, because the reason some people are poor is not lack of resources in the whole economy. We have way more stuff than we need even if it was 0-sum What do you think is…
Redistribution doesn't need to increase productivity, it suffices that it increases consumption for the economy to grow, if that's your only goal (it isn't the main goal for me). I recommend reading this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money Basically if you have the same amount of money in economy, but you double the number of transactions - economy will double too (assuming same distribution). Money natur…
It also raises prices until the same amount is done. A plumber might work extra hard when he gets more work than normal, but will burn out if he continues to work like that so he raises his prices until he has to work just like before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This, "If you have enough, why does it matter if someone else has more" argument doesn't really hold. Yes we can make more TVs and phones so that everyone can get one, but then get to things like centrally located housing, where there is a limited supply. It matters a lot if you want someplace to live, and there are thousands of very rich people trying to out bid one and other for the same space in your city. This is…
not that I disagree with you in principle but it is a bad example. there are a lot more places where rich do not want to live than places where they do so rich outbidding you for housing wouldn't make even a top-100 list of issues. the "If you have enough, why does it matter if someone else has more" is basically "rich get to live in Monaco, you get to live in Elmo, Kansas" with all your needs met
Silicon valley was backward cheap farmland that allowed students in the nearby universities to stay in an area with their college friends and start their business ideas instead of moving back home.
Anywhere there is excess energy/synergy the rich move in and try to capture it, sucking it out. You need places where society can grow, where excess energy is allowed to create excitement/progress/try new things.
The usual first-world disapproval over wealth disparity... often oblivious to the fact that you, the reader, were the global 1% all along
The minimum entry requirement for top 1% inclusion is about 1 million dollars. So your comment is just wrong.
I would not care at all if 1 ppm of the world population would hold 100 times the wealth of the poorest half of the world population, if all of the poorest half would have nonetheless the means to produce their minimum necessities in energy, food, clothes etc., independently of others, so that their survival for the next months or weeks or even days would not be completely dependent on the benevolence of the rich to…
See, it isn't about having stuff, it is about having power over people. That's why inequality is horrible.
I would not care at all if 1 ppm of the world population would hold 100 times the wealth of the poorest half of the world population, if all of the poorest half would have nonetheless the means to produce their minimum necessities in energy, food, clothes etc., independently of others, so that their survival for the next months or weeks or even days would not be completely dependent on the benevolence of the rich to…
You can get a piece of land and have a simple house on it, get a wood stove, stop buying things that generate trash (grow your own food, etc. and compost all scraps). Raise animals like chickens and goats. Put in a well. There's a ton of guides and YouTube videos out there about people who homestead.
I know people who do this on 1-2 acres and are a couple hours from a major city. The reality is that it's a ton of work and there's downsides, it depends on what kind of person you are.
(This is responding to your specific comment, I know that choosing to do this in the developed world is different from people who have no choice and no options in a developing country/place).
I think it's become popular to talk about the issue of accumulation of wealth, and make this kind of dramatic wealth comparison to point out how uneven the distribution is. I wish wealth wasn't treated so abstractly as if it's some kind of universal measure of evil. I would like to learn about some specific cases of hyper wealthy people and what they are actually up to. Seems like some very rich people do really usef…
> I wish wealth wasn't treated so abstractly as if it's some kind of universal measure of evil. It is evil, the vast majority of people don't become rich without exploiting other people, and just about everyone in that position then leverages their wealth to exert even more power over people and politics. > technologies and aid originating from the wealthier nations. We run sweatshops in poor countries, exploit their…
Do you have any evidence to back this up? The cutoff for being in the richest 1% globally is about $1 million. What's the evil and exploitation you attribute to the average person with $1mm, who statistically is probably a retiree who had a pretty normal job?
We run sweatshops in poor countries, exploit their people and natural resources to death, then we send them a few crumbs of aid to paint ourselves as the good guys for the history books, how noble of us!
Can you name some of those countries that we've exploited over the last twenty years? Do me a favor and also look up their GDP per capita, or whatever other measure of financial well-being you prefer, and tell me how it's changed over the past two decades. I suspect what you'll find is that they've grown way, way faster than the developed countries who are "exploiting" them.
I'm not suggesting the world doesn't have problems, or that richer countries don't take advantage of poorer countries. But this "rich = evil" drivel is cartoonishly lacking in facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using your logic, a person in debt living in a nice house driving a nice car is worse than a homeless person without any debt. Another example of your logic, any MD with a huge student debt is worse off than pretty much everyone in undeveloped world? Or a person with a business loan but a successful business.
Real estate, automobiles, credentials/degrees, and businesses are all assets that would counterbalance their debt. (Credentials and degrees are not liquid, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that a doctor's license isn't worth many dollars). The much more likely situation is a person with no assets or money and some credit card debt. Indeed, a person with simply no money is better off than such a person.