3 ms·

What exactly is "wealth hoarding" and why is it a problem? I keep hearing this term and realize I just tune it out because it sounds like a political slogan.

What exactly is "wealth hoarding" and why is it a problem? I keep hearing this term and realize I just tune it out because it sounds like a political slogan. I am open to understanding though just in case this is a blindspot for me.

coldpie 5y ago
Numbers are all super ballparky, but the top 10% of US citizens hold about $60 trillion in wealth[1]. If you redistributed that to every American equally, that would put about $200,000 into each person's bank account[2]. I think that would do a lot to alleviate things like college debt, credit card debt, and all the myriad woes that come with poverty, all without printing a single dollar. (Yes it's a complicated problem, you can't liquidate wealth like that, and obviously dropping two hundred K into everyone's bank account would probably create some weird issues. But that's a high-level overview of the problem.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2... [2] $60,000,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 people == $200,000 per person.
- takinola 5y ago
  I guess the question is whether the wealth of the top 10% is related to the issues of the rest. There are a number of possible places to get the same money (budget reallocations, corporate wealth, etc). It is not obvious to me that these 2 things are connected. Also, one way to address the issues is to get everyone to be wealthier. "Why can't you just be richer?" seems like a weird thing to say but this is exactly what has happened over the last 100 years or so (at least for most of the world's population). This has solved many things that used to be problems but created new problems of its own. Would a solution that makes the bottom 90% better able to afford healthcare but makes the top 10% even richer be a good thing? If not, why not?
- stephen999 5y ago
  Just distributing more money to people doesn’t create more resources in the real world. It just makes those resources cost more in dollar terms because more people have more money to spend on it. But the dollar value is somewhat arbitrary, doesn’t matter if it’s higher or lower just the ratio to incomes.

coldpie 5y ago

Numbers are all super ballparky, but the top 10% of US citizens hold about $60 trillion in wealth[1]. If you redistributed that to every American equally, that would put about $200,000 into each person's bank account[2]. I think that would do a lot to alleviate things like college debt, credit card debt, and all the myriad woes that come with poverty, all without printing a single dollar. (Yes it's a complicated problem, you can't liquidate wealth like that, and obviously dropping two hundred K into everyone's bank account would probably create some weird issues. But that's a high-level overview of the problem.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Wealth_Inequality_-_v2... [2] $60,000,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 people == $200,000 per person.

takinola 5y ago
I guess the question is whether the wealth of the top 10% is related to the issues of the rest. There are a number of possible places to get the same money (budget reallocations, corporate wealth, etc). It is not obvious to me that these 2 things are connected. Also, one way to address the issues is to get everyone to be wealthier. "Why can't you just be richer?" seems like a weird thing to say but this is exactly what has happened over the last 100 years or so (at least for most of the world's population). This has solved many things that used to be problems but created new problems of its own. Would a solution that makes the bottom 90% better able to afford healthcare but makes the top 10% even richer be a good thing? If not, why not?
stephen999 5y ago
Just distributing more money to people doesn’t create more resources in the real world. It just makes those resources cost more in dollar terms because more people have more money to spend on it. But the dollar value is somewhat arbitrary, doesn’t matter if it’s higher or lower just the ratio to incomes.