4 ms·

Yes, it is precisely that. It's very easy to take shots at extremely rich people, because they won't bother to show up and defend themselves and nobody else wil

Yes, it is precisely that. It's very easy to take shots at extremely rich people, because they won't bother to show up and defend themselves and nobody else will either. The main problem I have with this is that it's not very interesting and doesn't solve anything.

brador 10y ago
Should extremely rich exist as a thing? What benefit does it bring humanity over the alternative?
- ommunist 10y ago
  There is no 'humanity' when we talk about power and wealth. There are those who can do everything for power and there are those who cannot. 'Humanity' is abstract. Wealth and power are always attributed to certain individuals and are very often drectly inherited.
- asuffield 10y ago
  That depends primarily on what alternative you are proposing. If you aren't discussing a specific alternative, then it's just the kind of unproductive sniping that I object to.
- zanny 10y ago
  This is the primary problem with the discourse. People can agree pretty universally a tyrant, dictator, or emperor is a bad thing. You do not want heredity to determine power, and you do not want one individual to have violent dominance over anyone else, because you will often be the "anyone else" if you are not the aggressor. But that is about the only difference between how the modern gears of power operate versus how they did millennia ago. Rather than just kill your brothers and claim the throne and execute the dissidents and having your firstborn son inherit the crown from you, your children inherit ludicrous wealth that translates into the same power to buy the violent arm of the state for your own ends. Except now the peasantry cannot just storm the castle, behead the king, and replace him with another. There are kings from across the globe that control your society through its economy, and the present incumbents of radically concentrated power will argue everyone is king when they own wealth in the global capitalistic system. That, in practice, is pure deception[1], but you will have people by thousands at the bottom congregating to defend those off the chart, despite the ones at the top constantly using their power to harm all those below them. If we did have what the rich claim we do - democratized distributed power - we would need dramatically less wealth inequality, because that wealth, and the distribution of it, represents who has authority in the global capitalist economy. That is not an argument for socialism, communism, fascism, anything political. It is a reflection of tautological truths about having a global capitalistic market system that determines who is powerful by way of capital and fiat ownership, and that if you want to have a more democratic humanity you must first deal with the fact that money is power, and when power is aggregated into the hands of very few, you don't have democracy. We are not at the point to argue practicalities, or dogma, or anything else beyond understanding. What we need is just for near universal acknowledgement that this paradigm exists, is how the world operates today, and that you probably would want to do something about it because we can already universally agree we don't like tyrants, and that we should not like tyrants in any form they take, even the ones that are not immediately and obviously apparent to most. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
  - morgante 10y ago
    > Rather than just kill your brothers and claim the throne and execute the dissidents and having your firstborn son inherit the crown from you, your children inherit ludicrous wealth that translates into the same power to buy the violent arm of the state for your own ends. Except inherited wealth is at all-time lows. If you look at the richest people in the world today, the majority of them made their own way into those ranks. They didn't inherit it from anyone.
    - Kinnard 10y ago
      Citation?
      - morgante 10y ago
        http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-in-the-world-2015-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-in-the-world-2...
    - zanny 10y ago
      I should have worded it better, but it is not just strictly biological children. There is an entire cultural social class above what most call "rich" that encompasses the heads of major universities, companies, investment firms, and governments that represent a fraction of one percent of the population but have consistently controlled the vast majority of capital and have gradually increased their ownership stake since the most democratized periods surrounding World War 2 (though they were only so democratized because the pool of people in consideration was smaller - part of the problem in modern global capitalism is that almost everyone on the planet is now a participant, and thus there are now billions of people to exploit and bully than millions in industrialized western states that simply cut ties to the rest of the world with the death of classical imperialism in the early 20th century). In reality, money might not stay in one families direct hands, but upward mobility is at generational lows in the west, and in particular the number of successful new businesses, and those which elevate anyone out of the working class into either middle or upper class, are diminishing significantly[1]. [1]: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

brador 10y ago

Should extremely rich exist as a thing? What benefit does it bring humanity over the alternative?

ommunist 10y ago
There is no 'humanity' when we talk about power and wealth. There are those who can do everything for power and there are those who cannot. 'Humanity' is abstract. Wealth and power are always attributed to certain individuals and are very often drectly inherited.
asuffield 10y ago
That depends primarily on what alternative you are proposing. If you aren't discussing a specific alternative, then it's just the kind of unproductive sniping that I object to.
zanny 10y ago
This is the primary problem with the discourse. People can agree pretty universally a tyrant, dictator, or emperor is a bad thing. You do not want heredity to determine power, and you do not want one individual to have violent dominance over anyone else, because you will often be the "anyone else" if you are not the aggressor. But that is about the only difference between how the modern gears of power operate versus how they did millennia ago. Rather than just kill your brothers and claim the throne and execute the dissidents and having your firstborn son inherit the crown from you, your children inherit ludicrous wealth that translates into the same power to buy the violent arm of the state for your own ends. Except now the peasantry cannot just storm the castle, behead the king, and replace him with another. There are kings from across the globe that control your society through its economy, and the present incumbents of radically concentrated power will argue everyone is king when they own wealth in the global capitalistic system. That, in practice, is pure deception[1], but you will have people by thousands at the bottom congregating to defend those off the chart, despite the ones at the top constantly using their power to harm all those below them. If we did have what the rich claim we do - democratized distributed power - we would need dramatically less wealth inequality, because that wealth, and the distribution of it, represents who has authority in the global capitalist economy. That is not an argument for socialism, communism, fascism, anything political. It is a reflection of tautological truths about having a global capitalistic market system that determines who is powerful by way of capital and fiat ownership, and that if you want to have a more democratic humanity you must first deal with the fact that money is power, and when power is aggregated into the hands of very few, you don't have democracy. We are not at the point to argue practicalities, or dogma, or anything else beyond understanding. What we need is just for near universal acknowledgement that this paradigm exists, is how the world operates today, and that you probably would want to do something about it because we can already universally agree we don't like tyrants, and that we should not like tyrants in any form they take, even the ones that are not immediately and obviously apparent to most. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
- morgante 10y ago
  > Rather than just kill your brothers and claim the throne and execute the dissidents and having your firstborn son inherit the crown from you, your children inherit ludicrous wealth that translates into the same power to buy the violent arm of the state for your own ends. Except inherited wealth is at all-time lows. If you look at the richest people in the world today, the majority of them made their own way into those ranks. They didn't inherit it from anyone.
  - Kinnard 10y ago
    Citation?
    - morgante 10y ago
      http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-in-the-world-2015-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-people-in-the-world-2...
  - zanny 10y ago
    I should have worded it better, but it is not just strictly biological children. There is an entire cultural social class above what most call "rich" that encompasses the heads of major universities, companies, investment firms, and governments that represent a fraction of one percent of the population but have consistently controlled the vast majority of capital and have gradually increased their ownership stake since the most democratized periods surrounding World War 2 (though they were only so democratized because the pool of people in consideration was smaller - part of the problem in modern global capitalism is that almost everyone on the planet is now a participant, and thus there are now billions of people to exploit and bully than millions in industrialized western states that simply cut ties to the rest of the world with the death of classical imperialism in the early 20th century). In reality, money might not stay in one families direct hands, but upward mobility is at generational lows in the west, and in particular the number of successful new businesses, and those which elevate anyone out of the working class into either middle or upper class, are diminishing significantly[1]. [1]: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf