3 ms·

It's not, nor it really is in the UK itself. Certainly those who are titled as "upper class" as accepted by their peers, are nearly purely hereditary, but these

It's not, nor it really is in the UK itself. Certainly those who are titled as "upper class" as accepted by their peers, are nearly purely hereditary, but these people don't hold the bulk of money even there. Most cash in UK is in the hands of foreigners (many naturalised), i.e. earned abroad - the proverbial Russian oligarchs and Arab oil sheikhs. And there's no problem about the Crown Estate. Profits from it go to the government, apart from the small part which is spent to maintain the royal household (those amounts are not exorbitant by any measure and it is amusing that the royals are able to do with so little, take literally every "person from TV" and they spend more). Only way in which Crown Estate is different from government property is that if in any case monarchy is abolished in the future, it will be returned to the royal family - now private citizens - to become their "normal" private property. Only bad part about UK (and European in general) culture in that sense is that it's incredibly hard to "make it" locally. Indeed, most rich people either inherited their wealth, or just brought it from abroad having made it there (usually in some dirty ways). But this is a logical consequence of welfare state: in Europe, we don't let anyone fall through the cracks, social assistance system is truly comprehensive and there is not so much disparity in incomes. If you don't have any losers, you don't have any winners either: there is no way to have the cake and eat it too.

pjc50 5y ago
> If you don't have any losers, you don't have any winners either: there is no way to have the cake and eat it too. The economy is not this zero-sum, fortunately.
- anovikov 5y ago
  I haven't claimed it is, but see: if we make taxes high enough, especially progressive taxes, we avoid poverty, but we also prevent accumulation of wealth. If we have employment laws that make it difficult to fire people, we have job security, but we also don't have any startups (how do you hire people there if it can go bust and you can't easily fire them, and why would anyone go to work somewhere where job isn't secure while elsewhere it is?). There are many ways in which it works, and bottom line is: you either have crowds of bums, piss and shit and needles in the street but also ways to get rich from nothing if you work hard, as in the US, or you have neither, as in Europe. It's about choices. Letting people win big means making many more people lose. Cynical approach is to do business and invest money in the US, and live in Europe. Which is actually what i recommend and what i do myself. With full understanding that i am living in a dead end place which is about to become sort of a living museum already in my lifetime, a human zoo.
  - tim333 5y ago
    During the US's best period of economic growth in the 50s I don't think they had the crowds of bums thing.
    - anovikov 5y ago
      They had ghettos of squat houses/shacks with literally rivers of shit, rampant prostitution and addictions, and gang rule though. And yes, legally and physically segregated. And also, back then there weren't really any startups. And they had it only because rest of the world nearly killed one another with US being the only country that managed to sit the WWII out.

pjc50 5y ago

> If you don't have any losers, you don't have any winners either: there is no way to have the cake and eat it too. The economy is not this zero-sum, fortunately.

anovikov 5y ago
I haven't claimed it is, but see: if we make taxes high enough, especially progressive taxes, we avoid poverty, but we also prevent accumulation of wealth. If we have employment laws that make it difficult to fire people, we have job security, but we also don't have any startups (how do you hire people there if it can go bust and you can't easily fire them, and why would anyone go to work somewhere where job isn't secure while elsewhere it is?). There are many ways in which it works, and bottom line is: you either have crowds of bums, piss and shit and needles in the street but also ways to get rich from nothing if you work hard, as in the US, or you have neither, as in Europe. It's about choices. Letting people win big means making many more people lose. Cynical approach is to do business and invest money in the US, and live in Europe. Which is actually what i recommend and what i do myself. With full understanding that i am living in a dead end place which is about to become sort of a living museum already in my lifetime, a human zoo.
- tim333 5y ago
  During the US's best period of economic growth in the 50s I don't think they had the crowds of bums thing.
  - anovikov 5y ago
    They had ghettos of squat houses/shacks with literally rivers of shit, rampant prostitution and addictions, and gang rule though. And yes, legally and physically segregated. And also, back then there weren't really any startups. And they had it only because rest of the world nearly killed one another with US being the only country that managed to sit the WWII out.