4 ms·

The notion that there's even significant wealth held by private individuals is total fiction. Compare yearly flows of money to private wealth. The global GDP is

The notion that there's even significant wealth held by private individuals is total fiction. Compare yearly flows of money to private wealth. The global GDP is estimated at around $150T, and total global private wealth at perhaps $200T. You could literally confiscate all private wealth in the world and it would run out in a few years. Most people just don't realize this simple fact. We hear about how just a few people hold most of the world's wealth and it creates this image of enormous control and influence. But when you compare it to flows of money you realize how little of world's economic output these "super rich" people have captured for themselves.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> But when you compare it to flows of money you realize how little of world's economic output these "super rich" people have captured for themselves. Alternatively: starting with a lot of wealth allows you to allocate your time and resources to the accumulation of power and cultural influence, often without ever experiencing life as an average person. So you end up with super powerful people who never experienced the anxiety of waiting for payday or wondering about job security with a new baby on the way. The corrupting influence of that -- even more than the opportunity cost of the wealth -- is a good reason for a wealth tax on the very, very, very wealthy. Would Trump be president if he didn't have a $400MM head start? Would the Koch brothers have been able to exert so much influence over state policy in places like Kansas if they didn't inherit their father's wealth? And, if so, would they have the same policy preferences and demeanors? Nothing is impossible, by I wager the odds are closer to zero than to one on both counts.
- auganov 6y ago
  Bloomberg and Steyer have pretty much disproved the notion that you can easily buy your way into politics. Most people don't even know who Steyer is. How many Steyers are out there? When a rich person tries to become notable and fails you just don't hear about them. When a rich person does something big you assume it's because of their wealth being their most apparent unique characteristic. President Trump is one of the few who made it. And he actually didn't spend that much money on the campaign at all. Switched to regular fundraising pretty fast. Sure, there's no question that his wealth is a big part of who he is. If anything he leveraged people's obsession with wealth rather than his wealth itself. You're still going to deal with nation state and corporate lobbying without private wealth. Successful private lobbying efforts get all attention because of how uncommon it is. How long have Koch brother[s] been at it? They pretty much were life long political activists. And most of that is out of personal conviction. Doesn't seem to me like they have attained any concerning levels of power at all given their dedication.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > How long have Koch brother[s] been at it? They pretty much were life long political activists. That's... an understatement. They were life long members of the donor class. It's not like they spent their 20s-40s knocking on doors and then hit it big. > And most of that is out of personal conviction. Well, yes... that's what I meant by "would they have the same policy preferences and demeanors?" -- I think there are striking policy differences between Bloomberg and Kochs/Trump that are probably in part explained by the differences in their life experiences. > Doesn't seem to me like they have attained any concerning levels of power at all given their dedication. I can tell you're not in Kansas anymore ;) From David Koch's very level-headed obit in the Wichita Eagle: "David and Charles Koch unmistakably altered the political scene" https://www.kansas.com/news/business/article234301367.html#storylink=cpy https://www.kansas.com/news/business/article234301367.html#s... Democrats in Kansas can get a bit over the top, but pretty much everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agree that the Kochs are synonymous with Kansas politics. Anyways, yes, rich people both by inheritance and self-made will get involved in politics with varying levels of types of success. But I think it's corrupting for people to spend their entire lives in the donor class. Ascending to that position breeds a different type that inheriting that position. And, to be clear, this isn't even ideological; Trump and the Kochs aren't exactly the best of friends.
therealdrag0 6y ago
Why does it matter that the super rich are in turn dwarfed by global flows of money? That's apples to oranges. Run through this exercise: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ Then can you say it's a fiction that individuals have significant wealth? This is what people care about: "Are wealth gains being shared, or am I just working to pay my bills, not getting ahead, while making someone else rich."

throwawaygh 6y ago

> But when you compare it to flows of money you realize how little of world's economic output these "super rich" people have captured for themselves. Alternatively: starting with a lot of wealth allows you to allocate your time and resources to the accumulation of power and cultural influence, often without ever experiencing life as an average person. So you end up with super powerful people who never experienced the anxiety of waiting for payday or wondering about job security with a new baby on the way. The corrupting influence of that -- even more than the opportunity cost of the wealth -- is a good reason for a wealth tax on the very, very, very wealthy. Would Trump be president if he didn't have a $400MM head start? Would the Koch brothers have been able to exert so much influence over state policy in places like Kansas if they didn't inherit their father's wealth? And, if so, would they have the same policy preferences and demeanors? Nothing is impossible, by I wager the odds are closer to zero than to one on both counts.

auganov 6y ago
Bloomberg and Steyer have pretty much disproved the notion that you can easily buy your way into politics. Most people don't even know who Steyer is. How many Steyers are out there? When a rich person tries to become notable and fails you just don't hear about them. When a rich person does something big you assume it's because of their wealth being their most apparent unique characteristic. President Trump is one of the few who made it. And he actually didn't spend that much money on the campaign at all. Switched to regular fundraising pretty fast. Sure, there's no question that his wealth is a big part of who he is. If anything he leveraged people's obsession with wealth rather than his wealth itself. You're still going to deal with nation state and corporate lobbying without private wealth. Successful private lobbying efforts get all attention because of how uncommon it is. How long have Koch brother[s] been at it? They pretty much were life long political activists. And most of that is out of personal conviction. Doesn't seem to me like they have attained any concerning levels of power at all given their dedication.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > How long have Koch brother[s] been at it? They pretty much were life long political activists. That's... an understatement. They were life long members of the donor class. It's not like they spent their 20s-40s knocking on doors and then hit it big. > And most of that is out of personal conviction. Well, yes... that's what I meant by "would they have the same policy preferences and demeanors?" -- I think there are striking policy differences between Bloomberg and Kochs/Trump that are probably in part explained by the differences in their life experiences. > Doesn't seem to me like they have attained any concerning levels of power at all given their dedication. I can tell you're not in Kansas anymore ;) From David Koch's very level-headed obit in the Wichita Eagle: "David and Charles Koch unmistakably altered the political scene" https://www.kansas.com/news/business/article234301367.html#storylink=cpy https://www.kansas.com/news/business/article234301367.html#s... Democrats in Kansas can get a bit over the top, but pretty much everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agree that the Kochs are synonymous with Kansas politics. Anyways, yes, rich people both by inheritance and self-made will get involved in politics with varying levels of types of success. But I think it's corrupting for people to spend their entire lives in the donor class. Ascending to that position breeds a different type that inheriting that position. And, to be clear, this isn't even ideological; Trump and the Kochs aren't exactly the best of friends.

therealdrag0 6y ago

Why does it matter that the super rich are in turn dwarfed by global flows of money? That's apples to oranges. Run through this exercise: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ Then can you say it's a fiction that individuals have significant wealth? This is what people care about: "Are wealth gains being shared, or am I just working to pay my bills, not getting ahead, while making someone else rich."