4 ms·

> If the West ever returns to the idea of democratic society where everyone should have access to education, housing and good working conditions. Where we run o

> If the West ever returns to the idea of democratic society where everyone should have access to education, housing and good working conditions. Where we run our countries, our infrastructure and invest in scientific progress together. And where we believe that running businesses in line with the values of society is better. Then they would want democracy as well. In that matter, don't you think it's the financial status that pushes all the ideas back? There is a fundamental tradeoff between resources spent on individuals vs total resources.

pjc50 7y ago
> There is a fundamental tradeoff between resources spent on individuals vs total resources. Indeed. The world as a whole is heading towards a situation where a larger and larger fraction of resources is under the control of a shrinking number of extremely rich people.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  It's important to note that this is the narrative, but what's really happening is that a larger and larger fraction of resources is under the control of a shrinking number of extremely rich corporations. The corporations largely have diffuse ownership (they're owned by a hundred million people's 401(k)), and the top level executives are generally "rich" but e.g. Tim Cook has less than 1% as much money as Apple Inc.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    And who controls the corporations? Shareholder activism is really limited; to a great extent execs can pay themselves what they want, hire who they want, and donate to the politicians they want.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      But that's a completely different dynamic. It's like saying "who controls the government" because democratic control is really limited in a two party system where both parties have similar (or equally problematic) policies on many issues, unelected administrative agencies have wide latitude to set policy (including ones that profit them personally through the revolving door), government employees and government employee unions are a large voting and lobbying block despite the obvious conflict of interest against other citizens, etc. The problem isn't that Bill Gates has too much money, it's that we have institutions with too much power and not enough accountability, both government and corporate. And then they use that power to conspire together against ordinary people. What we need is to shrink the size of all entities to be less monolithic and more local and manageable.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > what's really happening is that a larger and larger fraction of resources is under the control of a shrinking number of extremely rich corporations. Corporations are a legal fiction by which power is granted to people, so, no, that's not what is “really happening”. Corporations obscure the real distribution of power. The reality is a ever narrower class of ever more wealthy (relatively as well as absolutely) people directs society. > The corporations largely have diffuse ownership Not so diffuse; the set of major capitalists is very small compared to the whole population, and the share of stock (and overall wealth) they control is quite large.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > Corporations are a legal fiction by which power is granted to people, so, no, that's not what is “really happening”. Corporations obscure the real distribution of power. The point is that corporations distort the real distribution of power. Apple's money nominally belongs to its shareholders, but in practice it's under the control of their executives, and they have many perverse incentives derived out of everything from personal enrichment at the expense of the shareholders to tax avoidance to empire building. Moreover, even under the set of incentives they're "supposed" to have, it means that a significant chunk of the economy is set toward advancing the interests of the fictional entity Apple Inc. even if its interests are not aligned with any individual person. > Not so diffuse; the set of major capitalists is very small compared to the whole population, and the share of stock (and overall wealth) they control is quite large. It's diffuse even then. Jeff Bezos is the richest man, has more than a hundred billion dollars, most of that money is in his own company, and yet even then he doesn't have majority ownership of even that company. An "ordinary" billionaire, i.e. someone with a billion dollars, could invest 100% of their money into Apple and still barely own 0.1% of it. Moreover, nearly all of the wealth of the rich is invested in corporations. Those investments yield returns, but the corporations are controlled far more by their executives than the nominal owners. Most importantly, that wouldn't change even if there were less "wealth inequality" unless the corporations were also made smaller -- it would in fact get worse, because the ownership would be even more diffuse, leaving the executives with even less accountability.
      - 7y ago

pjc50 7y ago

> There is a fundamental tradeoff between resources spent on individuals vs total resources. Indeed. The world as a whole is heading towards a situation where a larger and larger fraction of resources is under the control of a shrinking number of extremely rich people.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
It's important to note that this is the narrative, but what's really happening is that a larger and larger fraction of resources is under the control of a shrinking number of extremely rich corporations. The corporations largely have diffuse ownership (they're owned by a hundred million people's 401(k)), and the top level executives are generally "rich" but e.g. Tim Cook has less than 1% as much money as Apple Inc.
- pjc50 7y ago
  And who controls the corporations? Shareholder activism is really limited; to a great extent execs can pay themselves what they want, hire who they want, and donate to the politicians they want.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    But that's a completely different dynamic. It's like saying "who controls the government" because democratic control is really limited in a two party system where both parties have similar (or equally problematic) policies on many issues, unelected administrative agencies have wide latitude to set policy (including ones that profit them personally through the revolving door), government employees and government employee unions are a large voting and lobbying block despite the obvious conflict of interest against other citizens, etc. The problem isn't that Bill Gates has too much money, it's that we have institutions with too much power and not enough accountability, both government and corporate. And then they use that power to conspire together against ordinary people. What we need is to shrink the size of all entities to be less monolithic and more local and manageable.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > what's really happening is that a larger and larger fraction of resources is under the control of a shrinking number of extremely rich corporations. Corporations are a legal fiction by which power is granted to people, so, no, that's not what is “really happening”. Corporations obscure the real distribution of power. The reality is a ever narrower class of ever more wealthy (relatively as well as absolutely) people directs society. > The corporations largely have diffuse ownership Not so diffuse; the set of major capitalists is very small compared to the whole population, and the share of stock (and overall wealth) they control is quite large.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Corporations are a legal fiction by which power is granted to people, so, no, that's not what is “really happening”. Corporations obscure the real distribution of power. The point is that corporations distort the real distribution of power. Apple's money nominally belongs to its shareholders, but in practice it's under the control of their executives, and they have many perverse incentives derived out of everything from personal enrichment at the expense of the shareholders to tax avoidance to empire building. Moreover, even under the set of incentives they're "supposed" to have, it means that a significant chunk of the economy is set toward advancing the interests of the fictional entity Apple Inc. even if its interests are not aligned with any individual person. > Not so diffuse; the set of major capitalists is very small compared to the whole population, and the share of stock (and overall wealth) they control is quite large. It's diffuse even then. Jeff Bezos is the richest man, has more than a hundred billion dollars, most of that money is in his own company, and yet even then he doesn't have majority ownership of even that company. An "ordinary" billionaire, i.e. someone with a billion dollars, could invest 100% of their money into Apple and still barely own 0.1% of it. Moreover, nearly all of the wealth of the rich is invested in corporations. Those investments yield returns, but the corporations are controlled far more by their executives than the nominal owners. Most importantly, that wouldn't change even if there were less "wealth inequality" unless the corporations were also made smaller -- it would in fact get worse, because the ownership would be even more diffuse, leaving the executives with even less accountability.
    - 7y ago