4 ms·

(you got a few down-votes, that was not me) Explain just 1 thing to me... Lets take your suspicion that the 1% are keeping everyone down and miserable. And l

(you got a few down-votes, that was not me) Explain just 1 thing to me... Lets take your suspicion that the 1% are keeping everyone down and miserable. And let say their wealth is bigger - 10 times bigger - for the sake of the argument. This mean that over the last 10 years, on average, they stole $500 from you and me and the other billions of people. Per year, in the US and the rest of the western world [lets assume this is where most of that wealth is being siphoned form], has the $500/year they have stolen from you ruined your life, has that missing $500/year kept you from advancing in life, etc? To me this the answer is absolutely no. And this is coming from someone that is self-employed, and makes just above the poverty line. An extra $500/year would help me, but it would not affect my future. This was a rhetorical question, as the rest of the middle class does much much better than I, but if you can show me where I am wrong I'll be glad to readjust my view of the situation. Because right now it mostly looks like people are seeking victim-hood wherever you look. [edited for spelling]

CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
Wrt to happiness, I actually think it is a problem that people aren't more outraged then they are. It's a fairness issue for many of us, as you note. But as the topic of this post is that half the population of earth gets to share only 1% of its wealth, (I do not agree with your assumption), it should be pretty evident that it's a serious issue for them. But mainly, you should look at booth sides of the equation, it's a democratic problem when you consider the relative power difference they represent. While a little more money for you might just be nice (for most part of the world it would make a big impact though), the aggregated influence it affords the top 1% also affects you. They get to decide how half earth resources are employed.
- vixen99 11y ago
  Some things to consider: 1. Would that excess of wealth exist in the absence of those 62 billionaires? The answer is yes only for those who think it's already existing in the form of a pie rather than a product of creative processes. 2. The last twenty years have seen a decline in world poverty unprecedented in the history of humanity. This should be a cause for celebration and is inevitably associated with the ascendancy of the very rich. 3. Billionaires are such because along the line they provide or have provided goods and/or services that masses of us value and are prepared to buy. In the main our lives are much better because of those offerings. 4. The power of billionaires spending their own wealth worries me very much less than the power of politicians who spend far greater sums of other people's money for good or ill but are mostly isolated from consequences relating to the latter.
  - CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
    As my basic assumption is that the wealth in question is a result of rent seeking. All your bullets fall. 1. Yes it would. And if my assumption of rent seeking is true, there might even be more of it. 2. True. At the same time, the amount of people living just above the extreme poverty line has increased from both direction. That is, the poorest has gotten less poor, but the less poor have gotten poorer. And, no it is not inevitably tied to the very rich, if anything both groups has had changes driven by the same Ariel dynamics, but neither is causing the other. 3. Not if they got to be billionaires by extracting rent. 4. No argument from me there. I do worry about large corporations as well though.

CuriousSkeptic 11y ago

Wrt to happiness, I actually think it is a problem that people aren't more outraged then they are. It's a fairness issue for many of us, as you note. But as the topic of this post is that half the population of earth gets to share only 1% of its wealth, (I do not agree with your assumption), it should be pretty evident that it's a serious issue for them. But mainly, you should look at booth sides of the equation, it's a democratic problem when you consider the relative power difference they represent. While a little more money for you might just be nice (for most part of the world it would make a big impact though), the aggregated influence it affords the top 1% also affects you. They get to decide how half earth resources are employed.

vixen99 11y ago
Some things to consider: 1. Would that excess of wealth exist in the absence of those 62 billionaires? The answer is yes only for those who think it's already existing in the form of a pie rather than a product of creative processes. 2. The last twenty years have seen a decline in world poverty unprecedented in the history of humanity. This should be a cause for celebration and is inevitably associated with the ascendancy of the very rich. 3. Billionaires are such because along the line they provide or have provided goods and/or services that masses of us value and are prepared to buy. In the main our lives are much better because of those offerings. 4. The power of billionaires spending their own wealth worries me very much less than the power of politicians who spend far greater sums of other people's money for good or ill but are mostly isolated from consequences relating to the latter.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y ago
  As my basic assumption is that the wealth in question is a result of rent seeking. All your bullets fall. 1. Yes it would. And if my assumption of rent seeking is true, there might even be more of it. 2. True. At the same time, the amount of people living just above the extreme poverty line has increased from both direction. That is, the poorest has gotten less poor, but the less poor have gotten poorer. And, no it is not inevitably tied to the very rich, if anything both groups has had changes driven by the same Ariel dynamics, but neither is causing the other. 3. Not if they got to be billionaires by extracting rent. 4. No argument from me there. I do worry about large corporations as well though.