5 ms·
A more accurate title would be "Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all capital by 2030". Wealth is not equivalent to capital. The vast majority of capita
by smaddox 9y ago
A more accurate title would be "Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all capital by 2030". Wealth is not equivalent to capital. The vast majority of capital is tied up in the market capitalization of corporations, and only a small fraction of the market capitalization corresponds to actual physical wealth. If tomorrow the global stock market took a 10% dip across the board, then nearly 10% of the world's capital would vanish in the blink of an eye, but the worlds material wealth would not change at all.
There's no doubt that there is dramatic capital inequality in the world, but as long as that capital is being put to productive use (generating and distributing wealth) all is well. There's also vast wealth inequality (though, numbers wise, it's not nearly as bad as capital inequality), but as long as the minimum wealth is not desolation, wealth inequality is not a fundamental problem. As humans (or just as animals), we will always crave what we do not have, but if the cost of fixing wealth inequality is transferring capital to those incapable of applying it productively, thereby lowering the worlds total wealth, I do not believe we should bear that cost. Rather than focusing on wealth inequality, we should focus on building solid safety nets and proper incentives.
- charlesdm 9y agoThat same 1% would then also lose 2/3rds of 10% of their net worth. Something to remember.. Politicians can hate on the wealth inequality, but it's a problem they themselves have created in part through QE.