3 ms·
TTIP is pushed by corporations, not individual rich people. A corporation will want that even if every one of its stockholders has a below-median wealth. More g
by _yosefk 10y ago
TTIP is pushed by corporations, not individual rich people. A corporation will want that even if every one of its stockholders has a below-median wealth. More generally, organizations and people working for them will pursue their goals and these goals will be misaligned with the interests of the population at large even if nobody is involved whose net worth is particularly remarkable. If corporations are eliminated and most work is done by government agencies, then these new organizations simply become more shielded from all sorts of punishment from the population compared to corporations.
The rising nominal wealth of the richest people since 2008 is largely a result of asset price inflation resulting from low interest rates; the wealthy person is not more wealthy, however, holding a more expensive stock if the dividends and the profits are about the same as they used to be when interest rates were higher and stocks were cheaper, in fact the wealthy person is largely worse off since risk-free income is gone.
As to "unjust and dysfunctional"... aren't we all. At least a rich person can lose money in a variety of scenarios and can be intimidated by this possibility. A tenured academic pays no price whatever he does, so he's more scary that way.
edit: I'm not saying people aren't responsible, just that many of those responsible aren't that rich, and even if you mandate a ceiling on wealth and income, guess what, people will still want to get things done (because you will have a mechanism making them want to, otherwise nothing gets done - of course you can very much choose that, too), and guess what, people will get "their" things done at your expense.
In fact it's people who blame the rich who claim that people aren't responsible (their money/assets - the thing making them rich people on top of just "people" - is responsible.) I'm absolutely saying that people are responsible, and taking money from people will not solve very much.
This is not to say that nothing can be done; jailing wealthy criminals is a good start. A great economist whom nobody will blame for excessive concern for the welfare of the wealthy who'll be glad to show you his list of things to do, but who's nonetheless not "Pikettian", is Dean Baker.
- eganist 10y ago> A tenured academic pays no price whatever he does, so he's more scary that way. ...well, with the exception of reputational damage, which has significant meaning to a lot of people in academic pursuits. There's also the low risk with any especially egregious matter that the tenured professor might lose that status. Some people value their money. Some people value their brand. Some people value their time. Some people value success. Anyone can be "intimidated by the possibility" of losing what they value, and all of those, among many others, are neither infinitely accessible nor perfectly sustainable.
- PythonicAlpha 10y agoIt is a finger pointing game today. The rich say, it is not our fault, the corporations are doing that. The corporations say: We have to do that, because the "market" is demanding higher interest rates! So, who is to blame: "The Market"?? The politics that do, what the "market" wants, or the workers, that do not work 10% fast every year to secure the rising interest rates? We have created a system, that allows everybody to say, that it is not his or her fault, it is just the system. The politics also say, it is not their fault, that they fostered the system, because the business professors told them so. The scientists are also not to blame, because it is the "nature" of the money ... So it is just a law of nature? No, by nature, societies are better of, when everybody has his share and even when differences exist, some kind of sense for justice is implanted in every human being. Today's system of zero responsibility has the power to destroy every basis of human societies. Some day, the super-rich will realize that nobody else is left, that cleans their rooms or empties their trash-cans ... while living themselves behind big walls and barb-wire.
- jonathankoren 10y agoThey won't need people to clean their rooms and empty their trash. That's what the robots are for. They just stay their safe rooms with Tom Perkins waiting for his kristallnacht.
- PythonicAlpha 10y agoThen, they also can enjoy the (sole) company of robots.
- ommunist 10y agoButlers are cheaper and more comfortable.
- jonathankoren 10y agoPlease. Corporations are run by people. People with agendas. And at the upper echelons it's agendas to make them selves as rich as possible. This idea that somehow people aren't responsible is absurd. Presumably you work for a corporation. Do you check your brain at the door when you go in and turn yourself over to Master Control at the start of each day? No, of course not. It's long past time to give up this fiction.
- ams6110 10y agoThere are people at all levels of society who's agenda is "make them selves as rich as possible" from drug dealers and pimps to restaurant owners, car dealers, realtors, lawyers, doctors, you name it. Nothing special about corporate executives.
- jonathankoren 10y agoThe scale of their power is what makes them special. Tell me, when was the last time you made a decision than tanked an entire regional economy, or perhaps ruined the finances of a thousand families while lining your pockets? When was the last time you decided to simply ignore the law and then had the government come to you shaking how to change it to make you legal again? When was the last time you had law changed for your personal benefit? I don't think you can. That's what makes it different.
- ommunist 10y agoExactly. I saw such things with my own eyes.
- jonathankoren 10y agoWe all have.