5 ms·
Shareholders and keeping wealth disparity under control are at odds. As long as people are able to buy investments and own the profits of those investments, tho
by jtolmar 8y ago
Shareholders and keeping wealth disparity under control are at odds. As long as people are able to buy investments and own the profits of those investments, those people are paid proportionate to how much money they have, making their wealth over time an exponential function, which is inherently unequal even to other exponential functions with slightly different rates of return, and even more unequal to anyone stuck making money linearly by selling their labor.
I'd love to hear a good solution for this within a market system.
- bendbro 8y agoFor a good solution within a market system: kill everyone but myself and a small harem. Now there is a perfect market of one and all resources are optimally directed to me
- skookumchuck 8y ago> I'd love to hear a good solution for this within a market system. Your wealth won't expand forever, because we all die.
- elvinyung 8y agoWealth and power still get concentrated in families and corporations. I would argue that these are just as valid "agents" as the individual.
- skookumchuck 8y agoFamilies tend to dissipate wealth. The Rockefellers have long since dropped away in wealth, for example. So have the Kennedys. Corporations are owned by shareholders, who die and pass their wealth on to the government, family, and various charities.
- closeparen 8y agoThis should be easy to check: do today’s wealthy people generally owe their fortune to investing their parents’ money? My understanding is that upper-middle-class fortunes today are attributed more to cultural norms and posh school districts than to trust funds.