20 ms·

The Return of the Super-Elite

99 points by raleighm 8y ago

tzahola 8y ago
A spectre is haunting...
mnm1 8y ago
> Sommelier and Price found that so far during the recovery from the Great Recession, the American top 1 percent has captured nearly 42 percent of all income growth. Is that surprising? The people that created the recession also benefited the most from it at the expense of everyone else. It wouldn't surprise me if the recession was created on purpose for this exact reason. Regardless, we know the solution (high taxes especially corporate taxes and regulation) that can reverse this trend peacefully. We unfortunately also know the solution that can reverse this trend violently. At this point, it's just a matter of waiting and seeing which solution the US will pick. I have my non US passport ready to go at a moment's notice. I'm pretty sure I know which solution the US prefers, the one the US has always preferred in its history: violence.
viburnum 8y ago
Forget UBIs and other bandaids. Just simply taxing their wealth away would transform society. Plutocratic governence won't end until there are no more plutocrats.
- rectang 8y ago
  This is why I object to the "who cares about inequality if all boats are rising" argument. Massive disparities of wealth lead to massive disparities of political power and a government which serves the interests of plutocrats above all other concerns.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    And yet populism is soundly defeating the global business community for votes.
- samstave 8y ago
  My problem with this is simply that I feel that tax money is irresponsibly spent. Infra in the US is crumbling, we prop-up the profits of the same companies we are talking about taxing and defend them with the military that we pay for from the taxed wages of the people who work for said entities... Its a pretty bad loop of corruption and inefficiencies. I'd love to see a true accounting of how money is taxed, allocated spent and wasted. Just because something is "taxed" doesnt mean that the funds are used correctly - look at the Lotto, gas taxes and the recycling tax fund which was looted.
- ta1234567890 8y ago
  Agreed. However, how do you make them tax themselves? The super-elite control politics and government, so why would they tax themselves more? How do you create the proper incentives for that to happen?
  - jumelles 8y ago
    They'll never agree to it; we just have to outnumber them and outvote them.
    - LarryDarrell 8y ago
      And that is where the true brilliance of the Culture War comes in... we're going to have to ride this train until the last stop while all the passengers are arguing about kneeling NFL players or something.
    - AlexB138 8y ago
      Our government is actually set up, quite intentionally, to avoid making this possible. It's one of the core purposes of a republic. You can go back and read Plato discussing the exact idea that democracy is dangerous because the poor will vote to rob the rich.
      - viburnum 8y ago
        It's a fact that the US constitution is garbage.
- cocoa19 8y ago
  Unless all developed countries organize to tax wealthy people, why would wealthy people invest in countries that tax their wealth away? If countries don't play ball with rich people, they can just move to another country that is more "business friendly" (including low taxes). What am I missing?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    You are missing the fact that tax is not the only factor for people to stay. California is an expensive state by most measures but somehow it doesn't seem to have a problem keeping rich people in state.
    - rvense 8y ago
      California has high taxes and great universities. This is why I'm quite perplexed that, even though many in my country state that they want to copy California's success, they are trying to do so by (among other things) lowering taxes and ruining our universities.
    - nine_k 8y ago
      How many big corps are incorporated in California? How many rich people control their wealth via some Cayman islands subsidiaries, etc? Having a nice $30M home in California is likely a small expense for the ultra-rich the article talk about.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        Are you saying California is not a state with a lot of people having well-paid jobs and a lot of wealthy people? Would the state do better if it decided to lower taxes for the wealthy?
    - jerf 8y ago
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2018/07/06/millionaires-flee-california-after-tax-hike/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2018/07/06/milli... Not the only ones either: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-housing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-hou... Not saying it's a 100% exodus, but I'd definitely not call it "no problem".
- yarou 8y ago
  It’s a complex issue. What it comes down to is that fiat currency itself is the problem. The super elites, 1%, etc all have Disney bucks that are backed by nothing. The truth of the matter is, we have hyperinflation in this country. Prices always lag behind inflation, but if there is a serious trade war, the consumer is really going to feel the pain. $100 used to mean $100 worth of gold specie. We need to go back to the gold standard, otherwise monetary and fiscal policy, including UBI, will be worthless bandaids.
- wahern 8y ago
  Yes, it'd be just as transformative as it was in Cuba and Venezuela.
swframe2 8y ago
To paraphrase Keyser Söze "The greatest trick the Super-Elite ever pulled was convincing the world that inequality is a desired outcome of a properly functioning economy".
- nostrademons 8y ago
  I would think that the more straightforward paraphrase is even better: "The greatest trick the Super-Elite ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist." I doubt you'd find many people who actually agree that inequality is a desired outcome of a properly functioning economy (even if it's true). However, the Super-Elite have been remarkably successful at disappearing into the background and making the world forget about them. Look at the headlines today: they're about ICE & undocumented immigrants, or Nazis in Charlottesville, or Russian interference, or antifa protesters. You see very few news stories about private jet vacations or the real-estate holdings of the super-wealthy.
  - swframe2 8y ago
    I agree. The super wealthy prefer seclusion but it is hard to hide a 10 bedroom mansion and a superyacht. It is better to provide a strong "foxnews education" so there is no need to hide. Honestly, I wonder if a symbolic model would work better for our society. Ask the rich to set aside 20% of their wealth to provide low interest rate (~1% to 2%) loans to the poor to be used specifically on self-improvement (housing, infrastructure, education, policing, healthcare, childcare, etc). The loans start small and increase with good payment history.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      >Ask the rich to set aside 20% of their wealth to provide low interest rate (~1% to 2%) loans to the poor to be used specifically on self-improvement (housing, infrastructure, education, policing, healthcare, childcare, etc). The loans start small and increase with good payment history. What you're suggesting would create more wealth for the elite. It's a loan, so they retain the same amount of money (since it's a loan, the assumption is that it's paid back), while gaining more money in interest. I am lower end of the spectrum when it comes to my wealth, and I probably can't even claim any sort of middle class "label" in the USA. I avoid debt (because I can't afford to pay it back) and wouldn't even consider something like this.
martythemaniak 8y ago
I have a better idea. How about we just assert whatever it is that we want to be true, repeat the assertion enough times and then just want until our minds become warped enough to believe it. Say you want better healthcare. Do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of establishing metrics (infant mortality, obesity rates, whatever), having wonks work out policy, have bureaucrats turn the massive Ship of State towards that goal towards redistributing taxes and modifying lifestyles, spend years following up on all this? It's insane, people can't have democratic control over this, we can't expect them to put up with it. Instead we can just vote in someone who'll us we'll be "beautifully covered", then we'll all get together frequently to listen to him tell us how great things are going, then we'll hype each other telling each other how great things are. Who you're gonna believe, some rando egghead on TV yammering about metrics, or your community? As long as we all believe, everything will be great. And your shitty health? Well, you did what you could. shrug
- askafriend 8y ago
  At this rate, we'll be left with no option but to go down your suggested path anyway.
  - sobellian 8y ago
    The joke is that we are actively going down this path in the US.
    - wahern 8y ago
      We've been on that path since long before the advent of modern medicine. The rate of diabetes and diabetic complications is so ridiculously absurd among rural communities and among the poor precisely because those communities live in the old culture of "<shrug> he's sick, what can we do?". Those communities embraced interventions like vaccines because they were easy, cheap (or more often than not free), and didn't require changes to lifestyle. Lifestyle interventions are the preferred mode of the bourgeoisie precisely because the poor are unable or outright unwilling to make those changes.[1] The easy wins are over. Now we need to move the real mountains: hearts and minds of the larger population. This is a new fight. The regressions we see are a regression to the mean. But don't forget about or underestimate real wins, like cigarette smoking. That's a radical cultural shift with a tremendous impact to public health and public finances, especially when you consider that through the 1980s and 1990s you saw the same conservative reactions (i.e. spiteful retrenchment) that you see these days wrt to today's social policies. [1] Consider the flavored "tobacco" ban in SF. From a public health perspective there's very little to be gained. But the social elite were arguably more invested in that campaign than in earlier campaigns to reduce actual tobacco use precisely because it's fundamentally a lifestyle issue. And the irony that the elite are for legalizing marijuana but increasingly restricting vaping... don't get me started. I don't want to equivocate the poisonousness fatalism of the right with the zealousness of the left, but it's important to try to keep an objective perspective. Public health is a marathon. And if we let the perfect be the enemy of the better we'll all lose.
PowerfulWizard 8y ago
I'm not sure that it is possible to analyze this, but I'd like to see a breakdown of the >$10 million net worth range based on whether it was earned in America or not. You can change the American tax code all you want, but if it is only being used as a storage system (due to a good track record of stability and maintenance of property rights) then I'm not sure it will have much of an effect. For example, I think Venezuela was basically looted over the past few years, and I'm sure a lot of that money went into i.e. Florida real estate. I wouldn't credit any study of the super rich that is only looking at one country. An as far as using post-WW2 as an example, I'd like to see an example of a way to reduce inequality that doesn't involve killing millions and destroying Europe.
ve55 8y ago
This article should mention a lot of other factors that are important, including changes in technology, automation, globalization, etc. It's too short-sighted to simply say that the problem America faces is as simple as a small group of people or laws, that if removed, suddenly would fix society's ills. There are many other factors in play that should not be neglected.
- mruniverse 8y ago
  Why is it short-sighted to say if inequality or laws that cause inequality are removed, then societal ills will be fixed? If we can make laws that cause ills then we can remove those laws and their ills.
jchanimal 8y ago
I don’t think policy can fix this. The only peaceful solution I can imagine is a general rebellion against the use of money to organize our economy. If you are reading this you are a prime candidate to implement alternatives. Hint: bitcoin isn’t it.
- wycs 8y ago
  Money seems like an extremely good coordination mechanism to me. Name something that can perform the purpose of money that is not more coercive and less efficient than money.
  - jchanimal 8y ago
    Money’s problem is its commodity nature. It obscures the supply chain and puts unjust gains on the same footing as useful work. A replacement would make supply chains transparent and make relationships and reputation primary. I have a pet project along these lines but I’d like to hear other ideas: https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin
    - nine_k 8y ago
      I wonder how do you separate "unjust gains" from "just". Criminal proceeds can be detected and reverted by criminal courts.
      - jchanimal 8y ago
        If you don’t convert value to a commodity form, but instead trade in representations of the original work, then just and unjust can be in the eye of the beholder. With commodity currency, distant parties never have a chance to know.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  How about re-implementing unions in mass? When union membership rises, inequality declines [1]. [1] https://www.epi.org/news/union-membership-declines-inequality-rises/ https://www.epi.org/news/union-membership-declines-inequalit...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jumelles 8y ago
Extreme solution: wealth caps. Outlaw billionaires.
- downrightmike 8y ago
  Eat cake
  - downrightmike 8y ago
    This downvoted comment is exactly what I expected, because as much as we have changed and advanced as a people, with all the events since the French revolution, humanity will continue to struggle against oppression.
foxhop 8y ago
We have a minimum wage to prevent absurd exploitation, I see no reason to nit have a sane maximum wage (and networth)
- gnicholas 8y ago
  Sounds like an invitation to shell games and shell companies. And exodus to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. Source: I used to be a tax lawyer. Even if this weren’t the case, people would be disincentived from working hard jobs if there were a maximum wage.
galaxyLogic 8y ago
Once you have enough wealth to control the media, you've "made it". You could say that people like Putin have accomplished that. So it's not that rich people want more money because it allows them to consume more. I assume it is because more wealth allows them to control other people.

99 points by raleighm 8y ago

A spectre is haunting...

mnm1 8y ago

> Sommelier and Price found that so far during the recovery from the Great Recession, the American top 1 percent has captured nearly 42 percent of all income growth. Is that surprising? The people that created the recession also benefited the most from it at the expense of everyone else. It wouldn't surprise me if the recession was created on purpose for this exact reason. Regardless, we know the solution (high taxes especially corporate taxes and regulation) that can reverse this trend peacefully. We unfortunately also know the solution that can reverse this trend violently. At this point, it's just a matter of waiting and seeing which solution the US will pick. I have my non US passport ready to go at a moment's notice. I'm pretty sure I know which solution the US prefers, the one the US has always preferred in its history: violence.

viburnum 8y ago

Forget UBIs and other bandaids. Just simply taxing their wealth away would transform society. Plutocratic governence won't end until there are no more plutocrats.

rectang 8y ago
This is why I object to the "who cares about inequality if all boats are rising" argument. Massive disparities of wealth lead to massive disparities of political power and a government which serves the interests of plutocrats above all other concerns.
- closeparen 8y ago
  And yet populism is soundly defeating the global business community for votes.
samstave 8y ago
My problem with this is simply that I feel that tax money is irresponsibly spent. Infra in the US is crumbling, we prop-up the profits of the same companies we are talking about taxing and defend them with the military that we pay for from the taxed wages of the people who work for said entities... Its a pretty bad loop of corruption and inefficiencies. I'd love to see a true accounting of how money is taxed, allocated spent and wasted. Just because something is "taxed" doesnt mean that the funds are used correctly - look at the Lotto, gas taxes and the recycling tax fund which was looted.
ta1234567890 8y ago
Agreed. However, how do you make them tax themselves? The super-elite control politics and government, so why would they tax themselves more? How do you create the proper incentives for that to happen?
- jumelles 8y ago
  They'll never agree to it; we just have to outnumber them and outvote them.
  - LarryDarrell 8y ago
    And that is where the true brilliance of the Culture War comes in... we're going to have to ride this train until the last stop while all the passengers are arguing about kneeling NFL players or something.
  - AlexB138 8y ago
    Our government is actually set up, quite intentionally, to avoid making this possible. It's one of the core purposes of a republic. You can go back and read Plato discussing the exact idea that democracy is dangerous because the poor will vote to rob the rich.
    - viburnum 8y ago
      It's a fact that the US constitution is garbage.
cocoa19 8y ago
Unless all developed countries organize to tax wealthy people, why would wealthy people invest in countries that tax their wealth away? If countries don't play ball with rich people, they can just move to another country that is more "business friendly" (including low taxes). What am I missing?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  You are missing the fact that tax is not the only factor for people to stay. California is an expensive state by most measures but somehow it doesn't seem to have a problem keeping rich people in state.
  - rvense 8y ago
    California has high taxes and great universities. This is why I'm quite perplexed that, even though many in my country state that they want to copy California's success, they are trying to do so by (among other things) lowering taxes and ruining our universities.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    How many big corps are incorporated in California? How many rich people control their wealth via some Cayman islands subsidiaries, etc? Having a nice $30M home in California is likely a small expense for the ultra-rich the article talk about.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Are you saying California is not a state with a lot of people having well-paid jobs and a lot of wealthy people? Would the state do better if it decided to lower taxes for the wealthy?
  - jerf 8y ago
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2018/07/06/millionaires-flee-california-after-tax-hike/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2018/07/06/milli... Not the only ones either: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-housing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-hou... Not saying it's a 100% exodus, but I'd definitely not call it "no problem".
yarou 8y ago
It’s a complex issue. What it comes down to is that fiat currency itself is the problem. The super elites, 1%, etc all have Disney bucks that are backed by nothing. The truth of the matter is, we have hyperinflation in this country. Prices always lag behind inflation, but if there is a serious trade war, the consumer is really going to feel the pain. $100 used to mean $100 worth of gold specie. We need to go back to the gold standard, otherwise monetary and fiscal policy, including UBI, will be worthless bandaids.
wahern 8y ago
Yes, it'd be just as transformative as it was in Cuba and Venezuela.

swframe2 8y ago

To paraphrase Keyser Söze "The greatest trick the Super-Elite ever pulled was convincing the world that inequality is a desired outcome of a properly functioning economy".

nostrademons 8y ago
I would think that the more straightforward paraphrase is even better: "The greatest trick the Super-Elite ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist." I doubt you'd find many people who actually agree that inequality is a desired outcome of a properly functioning economy (even if it's true). However, the Super-Elite have been remarkably successful at disappearing into the background and making the world forget about them. Look at the headlines today: they're about ICE & undocumented immigrants, or Nazis in Charlottesville, or Russian interference, or antifa protesters. You see very few news stories about private jet vacations or the real-estate holdings of the super-wealthy.
- swframe2 8y ago
  I agree. The super wealthy prefer seclusion but it is hard to hide a 10 bedroom mansion and a superyacht. It is better to provide a strong "foxnews education" so there is no need to hide. Honestly, I wonder if a symbolic model would work better for our society. Ask the rich to set aside 20% of their wealth to provide low interest rate (~1% to 2%) loans to the poor to be used specifically on self-improvement (housing, infrastructure, education, policing, healthcare, childcare, etc). The loans start small and increase with good payment history.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    >Ask the rich to set aside 20% of their wealth to provide low interest rate (~1% to 2%) loans to the poor to be used specifically on self-improvement (housing, infrastructure, education, policing, healthcare, childcare, etc). The loans start small and increase with good payment history. What you're suggesting would create more wealth for the elite. It's a loan, so they retain the same amount of money (since it's a loan, the assumption is that it's paid back), while gaining more money in interest. I am lower end of the spectrum when it comes to my wealth, and I probably can't even claim any sort of middle class "label" in the USA. I avoid debt (because I can't afford to pay it back) and wouldn't even consider something like this.

martythemaniak 8y ago

I have a better idea. How about we just assert whatever it is that we want to be true, repeat the assertion enough times and then just want until our minds become warped enough to believe it. Say you want better healthcare. Do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of establishing metrics (infant mortality, obesity rates, whatever), having wonks work out policy, have bureaucrats turn the massive Ship of State towards that goal towards redistributing taxes and modifying lifestyles, spend years following up on all this? It's insane, people can't have democratic control over this, we can't expect them to put up with it. Instead we can just vote in someone who'll us we'll be "beautifully covered", then we'll all get together frequently to listen to him tell us how great things are going, then we'll hype each other telling each other how great things are. Who you're gonna believe, some rando egghead on TV yammering about metrics, or your community? As long as we all believe, everything will be great. And your shitty health? Well, you did what you could. shrug

askafriend 8y ago
At this rate, we'll be left with no option but to go down your suggested path anyway.
- sobellian 8y ago
  The joke is that we are actively going down this path in the US.
  - wahern 8y ago
    We've been on that path since long before the advent of modern medicine. The rate of diabetes and diabetic complications is so ridiculously absurd among rural communities and among the poor precisely because those communities live in the old culture of "<shrug> he's sick, what can we do?". Those communities embraced interventions like vaccines because they were easy, cheap (or more often than not free), and didn't require changes to lifestyle. Lifestyle interventions are the preferred mode of the bourgeoisie precisely because the poor are unable or outright unwilling to make those changes.[1] The easy wins are over. Now we need to move the real mountains: hearts and minds of the larger population. This is a new fight. The regressions we see are a regression to the mean. But don't forget about or underestimate real wins, like cigarette smoking. That's a radical cultural shift with a tremendous impact to public health and public finances, especially when you consider that through the 1980s and 1990s you saw the same conservative reactions (i.e. spiteful retrenchment) that you see these days wrt to today's social policies. [1] Consider the flavored "tobacco" ban in SF. From a public health perspective there's very little to be gained. But the social elite were arguably more invested in that campaign than in earlier campaigns to reduce actual tobacco use precisely because it's fundamentally a lifestyle issue. And the irony that the elite are for legalizing marijuana but increasingly restricting vaping... don't get me started. I don't want to equivocate the poisonousness fatalism of the right with the zealousness of the left, but it's important to try to keep an objective perspective. Public health is a marathon. And if we let the perfect be the enemy of the better we'll all lose.

PowerfulWizard 8y ago

I'm not sure that it is possible to analyze this, but I'd like to see a breakdown of the >$10 million net worth range based on whether it was earned in America or not. You can change the American tax code all you want, but if it is only being used as a storage system (due to a good track record of stability and maintenance of property rights) then I'm not sure it will have much of an effect. For example, I think Venezuela was basically looted over the past few years, and I'm sure a lot of that money went into i.e. Florida real estate. I wouldn't credit any study of the super rich that is only looking at one country. An as far as using post-WW2 as an example, I'd like to see an example of a way to reduce inequality that doesn't involve killing millions and destroying Europe.

ve55 8y ago

This article should mention a lot of other factors that are important, including changes in technology, automation, globalization, etc. It's too short-sighted to simply say that the problem America faces is as simple as a small group of people or laws, that if removed, suddenly would fix society's ills. There are many other factors in play that should not be neglected.

mruniverse 8y ago
Why is it short-sighted to say if inequality or laws that cause inequality are removed, then societal ills will be fixed? If we can make laws that cause ills then we can remove those laws and their ills.

jchanimal 8y ago

I don’t think policy can fix this. The only peaceful solution I can imagine is a general rebellion against the use of money to organize our economy. If you are reading this you are a prime candidate to implement alternatives. Hint: bitcoin isn’t it.

wycs 8y ago
Money seems like an extremely good coordination mechanism to me. Name something that can perform the purpose of money that is not more coercive and less efficient than money.
- jchanimal 8y ago
  Money’s problem is its commodity nature. It obscures the supply chain and puts unjust gains on the same footing as useful work. A replacement would make supply chains transparent and make relationships and reputation primary. I have a pet project along these lines but I’d like to hear other ideas: https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin https://www.wired.com/2014/07/document-coin
  - nine_k 8y ago
    I wonder how do you separate "unjust gains" from "just". Criminal proceeds can be detected and reverted by criminal courts.
    - jchanimal 8y ago
      If you don’t convert value to a commodity form, but instead trade in representations of the original work, then just and unjust can be in the eye of the beholder. With commodity currency, distant parties never have a chance to know.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
prolikewh0a 8y ago
How about re-implementing unions in mass? When union membership rises, inequality declines [1]. [1] https://www.epi.org/news/union-membership-declines-inequality-rises/ https://www.epi.org/news/union-membership-declines-inequalit...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jumelles 8y ago

Extreme solution: wealth caps. Outlaw billionaires.

downrightmike 8y ago
Eat cake
- downrightmike 8y ago
  This downvoted comment is exactly what I expected, because as much as we have changed and advanced as a people, with all the events since the French revolution, humanity will continue to struggle against oppression.

foxhop 8y ago

We have a minimum wage to prevent absurd exploitation, I see no reason to nit have a sane maximum wage (and networth)

gnicholas 8y ago
Sounds like an invitation to shell games and shell companies. And exodus to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. Source: I used to be a tax lawyer. Even if this weren’t the case, people would be disincentived from working hard jobs if there were a maximum wage.

galaxyLogic 8y ago

Once you have enough wealth to control the media, you've "made it". You could say that people like Putin have accomplished that. So it's not that rich people want more money because it allows them to consume more. I assume it is because more wealth allows them to control other people.