Millionaires Now Control Half Of The Worlds Personal Wealth: Report - Sensationalist Headlines

The last 50 or so years of US/UK (and western more generally) economic policy hasn't been 'careful evolution' of some innate system as you seem to be implying, nor are these 'checks and balances' upholding the order fundamental or proper. that means making the change based on emotion rather than careful deliberation. you're talking as if anything slightly outside of where we are now is some mysterious danger zone that nobody has bothered thinking about. it isn't here or probably communism, and people have certainly thought about it.

I agree that things must be done, but I disagree with your fatalistic outlook. What has allowed great projects to be enacted has been one of two things: State projects as recommended by Ricardo, or individuals with enough capital to enact those projects. Any sort of cap on personal wealth, although I agree it may be the best option, would consequently also cap the size of the project that are able to be pursued. I am not, nor have I been, accusing you of advocating collectivization, but it is unclear what other options there are. You are convinced that there is no possible world where there are very rich people and society doesn't collapse. I am not so sure. Inequal wealth distribution may be something more inherent to systems of exchange than we are letting on, and it may not be as bad as you make it out to be assuming we manage to find at least some way to manage it. Your concern is for all ships to rise on the tide, and I am saying that they have been and still are, but that tide is only as strong as the displacing force that may be inherent to free distribution of wealth. We might NEED rich people. You will have to make more points than simply asserting that this is not what has happened. As far as I know, that has been the way things have progressed as evidenced by the slowly emerging welfare systems the world over, not to mention the international humanitarian organizations that have cropped up. If people have thought about it, then please do be more specific and say what they have said. At the moment all I hear is "Rich people bad", "poverty bad", which is a useless statement without anything constructive to go with it. I am not saying communism is being advocated, I am saying that its easy to think up a radical change on paper because it sounds good, and have it end in horrors that no-one predicted. Communism and fascism does not exhaust the evils in this world, and it is very possible think up a third and even more fucked up 'solution'.

Wealth is power. If wealth continues to accrue into the hands of the few, so does power. There is a fundamental issue with that. I am not against there being wealthy individuals. I am not sure how you tackle the issue of that scale, but there is an issue with it present in a very pervasive and damaging way. There is 27 Trillion dollars unaccounted for in the global economy hidden in tax havens. There are 100 billion dollar underground criminal networks funneling money around the world. There is an innumerable amount of power located in those hands that have clear and well stated goals. Make. More. Money. Anything else is secondary to the large glut of these organizations and peoples. I do not know how you tackle this issue, but if you don't start doing something about it the balance of power becomes to skewed for change to ever occur. Do you believe that wealth creates power in our society and in democracy in general? Do you believe that power imbalance could present an issue to the society? If all you hear is "Rich people bad", "Poverty bad" then I think you would be best off not having the conversation on dishonest terms. I hear what you're saying. Have you considered the possibility that there are a multitude of solutions beyond "Communism", "Fascism", "Some other third options that's way worse" and "continuing on course"? Have you considered the cost of staying on the current course unchanged? Would you at least try before you start boiling down everything said to "Rich people bad"? The truth is all people will have to be more active in their local political realities, and those smaller focuses will allow for more control at a district level that is controllable by that community. This goes directly against the stated values of our current economic truth that we're a globalized society, and isn't one likely to be pushed by many voices. But that's a solution as I see it for helping to curtail the scale of power. That's still flawed, but if you want, I could do the same to you, and boil everything you've said down to "Status quo good!" "No complaints Allowed!" while you seeminlgy dismiss the issues of power creep in our own society. Just look at 2008. We're literally on the cusp of doing almost the exact same thing 10 years later in terms of financial regulations and speculation and all because wealth and power are tied together and the wealthy and the powerful benefit off of these recessions.

Yes, I certainly have considered that possibility, and all the problems you have brought up have been addressed by my support for regulation. To say tax havens are bad is to say no more than 'stealing is bad', which is obviously the case. Nobody is advocating for tax havens. Economic power is only as strong as the political power associated with it and I've already said that money ought to be seperated from politics. You act as if you wouldn't accuse me of saying "status quo good" and yet that is all you have done thus far. At several points have I offered potential steps forward and a clear indication that I support change, but you have consistently reacted with extreme fatalistic statements both about the world and my own opinion of whether it ought to change. Obviously things need to change, but the degree to which they can or should be changed is unclear. To your point about power imbalances: It may be the case that power imbalance is neccesary for society. In the most basic form you have the law over the individual. Your support for regionalism is heard, but it lacks the nuance of oversight which would be by definition a power imbalance. I daresay power imbalance is what keeps society going. If everyone has money then money would be worthless, so too with power. I say I only hear "Poverty bad, rich people bad" because short of your suggestion of regionalization, which, fairly enough, is a current debate in geopolitcs, you have not provided anything that sounds like it could stop the ailments you mention. What of the wealth cap I proposed? What of the concentration on a safety net at the bottom rather than a glass ceiling at the top? I criticize you and crumpets for your lack of constructive arguments. Tell me how we should fix it otherwise all we are really saying to eachother is platitudes, which, I might mention, I agree with generally.

Shit if I'm in the upper echelon of wealth distribution I'd hate to see the lower echelon. I never knew living paycheck to paycheck and getting food stamps was considered upper echelon.

I swear to God, you guys are more likely to envision the end of the world rather than a world without Capitalism.

How about providing some constructive suggestions rather than sitting on your high horse judging us lesser minds.

There's nothing to judge, while Capitalism has done much its cearly showing its death to us as a post-industrial planet. Hell, the rich can see the writing on the wall as well, that's why they're trying to collect as much of it as they can. Capitalism isn't sustainable, its entire ideals are based on constant growth. Constant growth is exactly what got us in trouble with the damage we've done to the planet. You're entire argument is that we haven't been doing it right. That's the same argument communists give for Communism. Your system would work if its done, right. Fact of the matter is that its not, and just like communism during its creation, capitalism's foundations were built in a vaccum, during the 1600s and 1700s when men thought that this planet had unlimited resources, that untamed land was wasted land, and was largely a critique of that Feudal markets that had come before it. Just as communism wasn't so much a refutation of capitalism but rather a critique of its systems. You treat economics as an infallible source of information but most researchers regard economics studies with the same hesitance as Psychology, Sociology and those of the soft sciences. The fact of the matter is I'm not sitting on a high horse, I'm below yours as this thread as illustrated in the last 3 pages of you misrepresenting someone's opinions.

At the moment we are not even in a state of pure capitalism, and nobody here is arguing for pure anarcho-anything. Obviously there are limits and considerations that weren't taken into account, but all that means is we need to take this system and figure out how to tweak it as we have been doing since its inception. Compared to any other system it has had the most success, and that has to do with trade and enterprise. No, my argument has been that whatever system of goods distribution we have now is work better than anything else we've tried and there is still room for improvement so long as we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Say what you will, but at least individualistic economics allows for increasing prosperity on average without resorting to gulags or death-camps. The task we have before us is figuring out how to go from where we are now to a place where the success of one person does not infringe on the success of another. You realize that placing limits on capitalist enterprise is exactly the solution that allows to account for limited resources? In an ideal world we would have a resource evaluation that makes supply and demand take into account conservation and ecology. To be economic with our resources is exactly the aim, and thus far only this system of relative individual freedom has allowed the growth we have seen. That growth, assuming humanity's continuing aspirations, must certainly be tempered, but it ought not to be thrown out. Economics is one of the few sciences where you can actually get the data you would even begin to need. Want to know how money works? Well, then just look at the mountains of data that is being put out by every agent who is exercising due diligence in reporting. Psychology and sociology has no such body of data that is comparable. If you want to know what happens to corn shipments if you dissallow free trade, you can find out, because it has happened. I am trying to discuss constructive solutions. If you think I am denying there are problems then perhaps you should re-read the thread a little closer.

I said probably. Yeah, you would hate to see them. They die in mud and starve to death and don't know what a food stamp is.

Oh Tiberius how you must loathe us for letting this happen time and again.

Eh, if you say so man. I don't even eat everyday.

Whoa! Easy there McMoneybags.

You might as well be arguing that people with AIDS have no right to complain because some out there people have terminal cancer.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/107231/3e00690e-9a4a-4a7d-9e5b-a29e036a19a4/image.png The U.S. poverty limit is $12,140 income for one person. That places the U.S. poverty level juuuust below the top 10% of the world. How much do you think the bottom 50% of the world earning <$2000 a year eats? Except that's not analogous at all. The issue is wealth distribution, being poor isn't a fucking disease. It's a consequence of how markets function. If you're in a western consumption economy you're likely to be doing quite well in comparison to some random poor bastard stuck in some hellhole country and life. Being able to not starve, living in relative safety from unjust death, eating food that will not poison you, and having the freedom of movement and employer are all privileges we (probably, anyway - if anyone here enjoys <$1/hour for labor, feel free to correct me) get to have due to the incredible levels of wealth our countries have accumulated- and very arguably have extracted from other countries. Most people don't have that kind of wealth. They don't have access to infrastructure, opportunity, nor security of any substantial kind.

Many poor people in the US do not in fact have much in the way of literally any of those "privileges" you just mentioned.

I don't disagree. Most people, even homeless people are doing better than some of the impoverished of the world. That doesn't mean that complaints about the systems being unequal, unfair, or broken are coming from people who are "Entitled shits". It also doesn't mean that the people like myself who view the inequality as a problem are complaining about it going "I want 5 fucking hot dogs, and no one else gets any". In truth, most people are looking at the system going "Why does that guy have more hotdogs than everyone else put together? Can't we do something about that for the sake of everyone"? But you can look at that, and view it in the one light that you deemed it possible to be seen in earlier in this thread. I just don't think that's accurate.

the regular millionaires are 3 kinds of people, half of them are well educated with good qualifications who live frugally, another quarter is high ranking military who live frugally, and the last quarter is people who got real lucky with a good business model at the right time in the right place who live frugally. I know all 3 of those types, they're good people. then theres trust fund babies and lottery winners, but they dont stay millionaires long. big old influx of cash the likes of which they've never seen with no experience in the fields that maintain your 7 figure bank account is a quick way to develop poor spending habits. there's only two types of ultra millionaires, the ones who got there by stepping on a lot of toes, and the ones who got there thanks to an inheritance from someone who stepped on a lot of toes. those are the ones you gotta watch out for.

There are more than 3 types of millionaires lul

someone who spends their whole life an e-3 isnt ever gonna see 7 figures. some pfc who left after their first tour will have to find a different way to obtain wealth. I guess you could also say there are people on their way to being ultra millionaires who haven't quite been at it long enough yet. also note that I'm talking liquid assets, so the guy who bought 200 acres a few minutes out of town for pennies in 1950 doesnt count.

Technically it's 1% owning 99% of the wealth, who do you think defines wealth and it's value? The banks of course.

this is like a 15 year olds grasp of global economics and supply chain economies

There are many careers and financial decisions that can accumulate wealth on the order of millions if you're frugal though, I don't get this arbitrary restriction to the military.

all of the basic millionares I listed had the modifier for frugal living though, read my post again I guess

Say whatever yo uwant but Holly fuck we are moving toward Deus Ex like a damn prophecy.

just like print more money lmao