4 ms·

so the american 1% alone has created 50T in wealth in the last several decades? seems unlikely

anonymousiam 6y ago
50T looks about right according to this chart: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
- onethought 6y ago
  That chart doesn’t strengthen your point. What (direct) action did those 1% take that generated 50T?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Wise capital allocation.
    - onethought 6y ago
      So they didn’t generate that money... whatever they allocated it to did.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        They generated the money by allocating it to a process that was productive. > whatever they allocated it to did. Machines are inanimate.
        onethought 6y ago
        I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Church of capitalism might have convinced to otherwise. But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ...
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. There are workers who operate the machines and there are workers who makes sure the factory exists for other people to work at. > The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Value is generated when a capitalist arranges capital so that he can hire people. > But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ... If you pay me and my worker’s comp insurance then you can say “we carried 10kg up the mountain” because I wouldn’t have done it for free or without insurance.
        onethought 6y ago
        At the fundamental level I don’t agree with this position. A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes)
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes) I’m aware that if you remove all the workers, value cannot be generated anymore. This includes the worker whose work is allocating capital. Hence all workers are entitled to the pay that they can negotiate with other market participants, including the capitalist who negotiates a rent (or other arrangement) for his capital. However the level of productivity of workers without any sort of tools is very likely to be below survival.
        onethought 6y ago
        Straw man, and misapplication of my point. Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist. Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work. Crazy I know.

50T looks about right according to this chart: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...

onethought 6y ago
That chart doesn’t strengthen your point. What (direct) action did those 1% take that generated 50T?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Wise capital allocation.
  - onethought 6y ago
    So they didn’t generate that money... whatever they allocated it to did.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      They generated the money by allocating it to a process that was productive. > whatever they allocated it to did. Machines are inanimate.
      - onethought 6y ago
        I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Church of capitalism might have convinced to otherwise. But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ...
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. There are workers who operate the machines and there are workers who makes sure the factory exists for other people to work at. > The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Value is generated when a capitalist arranges capital so that he can hire people. > But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ... If you pay me and my worker’s comp insurance then you can say “we carried 10kg up the mountain” because I wouldn’t have done it for free or without insurance.
        onethought 6y ago
        At the fundamental level I don’t agree with this position. A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes)
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes) I’m aware that if you remove all the workers, value cannot be generated anymore. This includes the worker whose work is allocating capital. Hence all workers are entitled to the pay that they can negotiate with other market participants, including the capitalist who negotiates a rent (or other arrangement) for his capital. However the level of productivity of workers without any sort of tools is very likely to be below survival.
        onethought 6y ago
        Straw man, and misapplication of my point. Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist. Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work. Crazy I know.