Support NeoGAF

[Jack Remington]

Hold on a second... people are defending this arrangement in this thread?

 

[VASPER]

I'm probably too simple minded to understand this, but i often wonder why would a single human being want that kind of wealth.

Even if you're a sicko who wants to hunt humans for sport like in that VanDamme movie, that's still overkill.

EDIT: I guess it's not about money, but power.

Mike Tyson spent $400 million in less than 10 years so that's why. Its fun to go blow $100,000 in a night. I want to be apart of that 1%.

 

[Jack Remington]

We really need to be redistributing a LOT more.

 

[flash ban]

I made a post earlier in the thread responding to a comment similar to yours:I have no trouble imagining that a CEO could make about a 100 times as much as the average person. A few CEOs' incomes reflect some kind of wrongdoing. But aren't there other CEOs whose incomes really do reflect the value they generate? Steve Jobs saved a company that was in a terminal decline. And not just by cutting costs, he had to decide what Apple's next products should be. Few others could have done it.

Few others could have decided the product? I need some background on that, because most of the products I've seen from apple would have likely been approved by tech savvy individuals. Or do you mean he actually invented the products?

What would Apple's next product would have looked like if you replaced Steve Jobs with a committee of 100 random people? Maybe the CEO has only ten times, whatever that means, the skill and determination of an ordinary person. But it makes all the difference that it's concentrated in one individual.

So because it's not a committee, they should earn as much as a committee regardless of the fact someone else could also be doing as good a job?

 

[Timedog]

It seems to me (and I don't know what the fuck I'm even talking about), that businessmen, marketing, and position of that nature do play an important role. They provide liquidity for "social wealth", and they interact with the public in a more direct way than government does. The problem, to me, seems to be simply one of compensation. If they are providing liquidity but at the same time siphoning off enormous amounts of the means with which to accrue that social wealth, then they are doing more harm than good for society as a whole.

Society should not accept things that do more harm than good. If someone believes that their personal morals or ethics supercedes what is best for society, I think they ought to disengage from society. I think libertarians can sometimes have good arguments about what's "fair", but I think when you decide to engage with society, you must give up the idea of absolute "fairness". What is most fair is what will bring the most benefit to society as a whole.

 

[Jack Remington]

Jeez, I read through this thread, and indeed, there are plenty of people who don't think this is an issue.

Allow me to lay out some facts.

17 million American children lack consistent access to nutritious food.

1 in 5 Americans had unmet medical needs in 2010.

Infrastructure spending is at its lowest level in over 20 years.

Community colleges charge higher fees, offer fewer classes.

In no state can a single mother working 40 hours a week and earning minimum wage afford to rent a 2 bedroom unit.

These are very real problems that could be solved with very real money. Money which is collecting at the top, earning interest, inflating commodity bubbles, but not circulating through the people who would actually spend it on goods and services that would have a dramatically positive impact on their lives.

How does anyone consider this an acceptable arrangement again?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Sure, government invented the internet. But what happened next shows how government fails but the free market succeeds. It took decades before the government allowed all of us to benefit from an important new technology. Once it was privatised, the free market, not government, turned the internet from something that was inefficient and not directed toward socially and economically useful purposes into the internet that we know and have today.

You clearly don't know shit. There was no market for the internet. You beloved free market wouldn't have done anything with it. There was no infrastructure for it, very few computers could handle it, there was no internet protocol, nothing more than an extremely crude way of connecting PC's. It took further decades of research before we were actually able to have a version of the internet that was actually usable outside of academia for the select few computer scientists who knew what to do.

The free market isn't some magic wand you wave and something beautiful comes out.

 

[Jack Remington]

Ugh.

Private R&D spending will always be at suboptimal levels, because the private marginal benefit of research is always lower than the social marginal benefit due to spillover effects.

Thus, the socially-optimal level of R&D always includes public funding, and the private sector will never deliver an optimal level of innovation on its own. You won't find many economists who argue against this, outside of whackjobs at the Cato Institute.

This isn't Econ 101, but it's close.

Or, what Notrollious just said.

 

[Earthstrike]

Sure, government invented the internet. But what happened next shows how government fails but the free market succeeds. It took decades before the government allowed all of us to benefit from an important new technology. Once it was privatised, the free market, not government, turned the internet from something that was inefficient and not directed toward socially and economically useful purposes into the internet that we know and have today.

When the internet was privatized, who took ownership of it? Who owns the internet right now?

 

[HarryHengst]

It seems to me (and I don't know what the fuck I'm even talking about), that businessmen, marketing, and position of that nature do play an important role. They provide liquidity for "social wealth", and they interact with the public in a more direct way than government does. The problem, to me, seems to be simply one of compensation. If they are providing liquidity but at the same time siphoning off enormous amounts of the means with which to accrue that social wealth, then they are doing more harm than good for society as a whole.

THe fun thing is that, by hoarding all that money earned by the rest of the world, those filthy rich are openly bribing (im sorry, i mean lobbying) the government to change the rules in their favour, so they can steal (oh wait, i mean earn) even more money! And then they turn around and puke out loads of propaganda about how its a just world and you get people like retrobot eating up that puke and declaring how great the 'free' (which really isnt that free, but dont tell him that) market is.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm probably too simple minded to understand this, but i often wonder why would a single human being want that kind of wealth.

Even if you're a sicko who wants to hunt humans for sport like in that VanDamme movie, that's still overkill.

EDIT: I guess it's not about money, but power.

No. It's about freedom. In this world, only the rich are truly free.

 

[Acorn]

Alot of people seem to forget the more money in a Rich persons hands the more is taken out of the real economy.

The lower classes tend to spend the majority of their earnings on purchases,utilities and the like so it all circulates around helping the entire economy flourish. Now rich people take that money out of the 'real' economy and either let it sit in a high interest account, invest in Gilts and bonds or put that money with an investment management company. Also funneling it to tax haven is reallllllllly prevalent even with low-medium type wealthy people(i.e over £500k in liquid assets).

That money does nothing for anybody outside the financial industry, it isn't getting circulated in through stores, people or industries its just constantly being recycled inside that bubble.

You can make a sort-of case that Bonds and gilts help the real economy by funding govts and companies, but the interest rates offered (due to inherent more risky option of bonds) and coupons mean more is taken out and that put in (obviously or nobody would invest in them).

 

[akira28]

I misread the title as "health", and thought things were starting to finally go our way.

 

[ColonialRaptor]

How do I become part of this group of incredibly wealthy, influential and powerful people?

Not care who, what, and how you fuck over the environment, the people around you and other human beings in order to make a dollar. Be ruthless and in general, evil. Any competition needs to be squashed without remorse. Lie, Cheat, Steal and Kill do anything possible to keep your profit to yourself.

 

[blueICE]

Wealth Inequality in America (this short video sums it all up)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

 

[Alej]

Many of those 40% atleast worked towards a productive society.

In a 1st world nation, if you study hard and work hard you will have a good life, 99 out of 100 times. There's no reason to complain.

The reason our societies are shit is not just because the rich hoard too much money, it's because another 40% of people are lazy bums whose aim is to work the least possible, instead of going for success.

Even in college I see this, almost nobody takes their studies as hard as they should, including myself. You guys generalize the rich like you would a minority, and there are plenty of rich people that earned their money.

I'm 26 and unemployed. Was student until last year. Was studying hard my whole life. Want to working hard but nobody wants me.

T_T

 

[jaxword]

When the internet was privatized, who took ownership of it? Who owns the internet right now?

Google.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Entrepreneurship vs what other workers do is not the issue here.

The figures, according to Credit Suisse, is thet 0.6% of the world hold around $87.4 TRILLION in assets.

Capitalism stopped working with the advent of the industrial age, with individuals being at the right place and the right time (the Vanderbilts, the Morgans, the Mellon, the Rockefellers, the Rothschields from before). With the birth of massive corporations, political power was solidified in the hands of a few, so capitalism was no longer ruled by true supply and demand of its inputs and outputs; capitalism became about who has the power to politically manipulate the inputs and outputs to their advantage.

When you have trillions of dollars many times the GDP of even the US, it's not about what stock or bond can you pick to invest in. It's about how can you influence the economy (through governments and central banks) to meet your objectives of capital preservation and growth.

The middle class worker is a disposable source of income tax, consumption and debt repayment.

 

[amar212]

A bit off-topic but:

Fw months ago there was a claim how today every US congressman (or was it senator?) is somehow connected to corporations.

Anyone on PolitGAF care to link me to that story? I couldn't find it by no mean.

Thank you in advance!

 

[ICKE]

Entrepreneurship vs what other workers do is not the issue here.

The figures, according to Credit Suisse, is thet 0.6% of the world hold around $87.4 TRILLION in assets.

How much does that make per person? Owning 500,000$ is middle class (house, furniture, accounts) these days but probably puts you in the top 0.5% bracket globally speaking.

The problem is the 0.00001% who use offshore accounts in places like Cyprus, lobby for higher taxes and more regulation publicly while at the same time are exempt themselves - thus creating more monopoly power. It's a good way to kill off the remaining entrepreneurial spirit.

At the same time too often people who are disenfranchised think someone who earns over 50,000 is rich and should be taxed at a higher rate. As a result your average worker pays over 30% from every paycheck and is just a few months away from total destitution.

 

[phaze]

Entrepreneurship vs what other workers do is not the issue here.

The figures, according to Credit Suisse, is thet 0.6% of the world hold around $87.4 TRILLION in assets.

Capitalism stopped working with the advent of the industrial age, with individuals being at the right place and the right time (the Vanderbilts, the Morgans, the Mellon, the Rockefellers, the Rothschields from before). With the birth of massive corporations, political power was solidified in the hands of a few, so capitalism was no longer ruled by true supply and demand of its inputs and outputs; capitalism became about who has the power to politically manipulate the inputs and outputs to their advantage.

When you have trillions of dollars many times the GDP of even the US, it's not about what stock or bond can you pick to invest in. It's about how can you influence the economy (through governments and central banks) to meet your objectives of capital preservation and growth.

The middle class worker is a disposable source of income tax, consumption and debt repayment.

You have a very rosy picture of life before industrial age.

 

[Sanky Panky]

How much does that make per person? Owning 500,000$ is middle class (house, furniture, accounts) these days but probably puts you in the top 0.5% bracket globally speaking.

The problem is the 0.00001% who use offshore accounts in places like Cyprus, lobby for higher taxes and more regulation publicly while at the same time are exempt themselves - thus creating more monopoly power. It's a good way to kill off the remaining entrepreneurial spirit.

At the same time too often people who are disenfranchised think someone who earns over 50,000 is rich and should be taxed at a higher rate. As a result your average worker pays over 30% from every paycheck and is just a few months away from total destitution.

Here is the breakdown of the figures

•In 2012, 3.2 billion individuals – more than two-thirds of the global adult population – have wealth below USD 10,000, and a further one billion (23% of the adult population) are placed in the USD 10,000–100,000 range.

◦The average wealth holding is modest in the base and middle segments of the pyramid, total wealth amounts to USD 39 trillion, underlining the potential for new consumer trends products and for the development of financial services targeted at this often neglected segment.

•The remaining 373 million adults (8% of the world) have assets exceeding USD 100,000.

•And then the top of the pyramid: 29 million US dollar millionaires, a group which contains less than 1% of the world’s adult population, collectively owns nearly 40% of global household wealth.

•Some 84,500 individuals are worth more than USD 50 million, and 29,000 are worth over USD 100 million.

You have a very rosy picture of life before industrial age.

It was just a comparisson between what we have now, and the capitalism dreamed up in the 1700's by Adam Smith.

 

[Jacobi]

This modern world is Karl Marx' nightmare.

 

[jakonovski]

One tragic aspect is that after a while immense wealth becomes meaningless for an individual in terms of how much they can consume. At that point the only expression of wealth is how much it denies from other people.