5 ms·

>Assets grow faster than wages. How long will this continue though? This can't be sustainable forever. At one point, you won't have any money to buy any asset

>Assets grow faster than wages. How long will this continue though? This can't be sustainable forever. At one point, you won't have any money to buy any assets if your wages are barely covering your food and shelter, and so we'll go back to feudalism where only those few with inherited wealth owned assets and everyone else was a slave for life.

mempko 4y ago
All the important stuff is already owned by the few. It will just get worse. Eventually will lead to a revolution. That's the end game if it keeps going. There needs to be a jubilee and a 'new new' deal to prevent it. However, people in the USA have to acknowledge they are in an empire that's declining. There will be a lot of pain. Look at the British for what that looks like.
- nightski 4y ago
  I don't feel like that is accurate at all. The most valuable assets by far are successful companies. While it is true that they are owned in large part by a "few" (relative to the total population), that few changes often. We've seen massive changes in wealth in just the past decade alone, particularly in tech.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    Yeah, but the systematic problems come from the shape of the pyramid not the identity of the people at the top, so churning them doesn't help.
  - spiralx 4y ago
    The most valuable assets by far - accounting for over half of all wealth - are land in highly desirable locations, because both individuals and companies have to pay rent while the landlord pays basically nothing in upkeep in perpetuity while only facing the unlikely risk that rents might drop to zero if the land becomes undesirable - not very likely if you own part of downtown New York, London or any major city.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Exponential growth in a constrained system. A microphone next to a speaker.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    The speaker won't break, it will reach a limit and that's it. Otoh, this constrained system will break.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      Speakers can break :) The behavior when it doesn't break is actually more informative, though. At first, all aspects of the music experience exponential growth. Once clipping sets in, the growth of the loudest / highest gain frequencies continues, but now at the expense of every other frequency. Eventually one frequency wins and the system devolves into the distorted shriek of a single fundamental frequency and its harmonics. The idea here is that we can tell where we are between "free growth" vs "starting to clip" by looking to see how well the rising tide is fulfilling its promise of floating all boats.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  > Eventually will lead to a revolution. I doubt it. 1) That's why the west are pushing for forms of government surveillance disguised as Covid tracking, or anti-terrorist surveillance, or anti-child-porn surveillance, or whatever flavor of the month the current "enemy" happens to be, to make sure they can see it coming and stamp out any potential public dissidence before it hits the elites. 2) Unlike the French or Soviet revolutions from a couple of hundred years ago, which saw the deaths of the elites, the elites of today can travel to remote places using planes to distance themselves from the angry mobs, and rule their empires remotely using the internet. Huge game changers compared to the past.
  - bradchris 4y ago
    Every, and I mean _every_, successful revolution was due to the governments/rulers/aristocrats/elites thinking they could successfully quell a revolution with force and distance themselves from the mobs. In the French revolution, which took place in Paris, the elites all lived outside the city. The royal family lived in Versailles. No one went into the city for any day to day business. When the revolution happened, the nobility fled, and they directed their armies to seize and starve the city. They were using all their wealth and power to quell and flee. Much good that did them. Putting the present elite at an even stronger disadvantage, though, is that Western billionaires only have power because the people allow them to -- land, money, stocks, it's all owned on paper. If a revolution is successful, there is no reason a billionaire's wealth or power couldn't be wiped away at the swipe of a pen. Elon Musk does not have enough of a private army nor his wealth in gold to defend his claim to anything.
    - runnerup 4y ago
      I somewhat disagree with your premise but worth noting some American billionaires do in fact have their own armed forces: https://www.indiatimes.com/amp/technology/news/sergey-brin-secret-disaster-relief-team-with-ex-us-military-516282.html https://www.indiatimes.com/amp/technology/news/sergey-brin-s...
      - thebradbain 4y ago
thebradbain 4y ago
Historically, that's when a revolution or regime-change happens. This is something the richest of the rich have either forgotten or mistakenly think they'll be insulated from. Like the line from Titanic when the extravagantly wealthy Calvert is trying to buy himself onto a lifeboat – "Your money can't save you any more than it can save me."
- aksss 4y ago
  Depends on the scope of “history”. You could also say that historically that’s when a civilization gets put under a feudal yoke for scores of generations. Successful revolution by “the workers” is more the exception than the norm in the story of humanity, I should think. there are plenty of places in the world that are ruled by truly oppressive regimes, and I think most of the world, most of the time, has looked like that, not like the developed “West”.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >not like the developed “West” The west is like this today (apart from the countries that built themselves up on colonial empires of theft) in part also to a lot of violent and sometimes deadly revolts against the ruling class. US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc. all saw bloody strikes and protests, in order to get fair living conditions. Noting was ever given out of pure generosity, without a fight.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The west [...] (apart from the countries that built themselves up on colonial empires of theft) That's...barely a thing at all. > US, UK, France, Italy, etc. If those are your examples, you really don't need the “apart from...”
      - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
        My point was that all the theft from colonialism didn't really improve things much back home for the average folk in those countries later on, as all the stolen wealth ended up in the hands of the few elites, and the working class people were left to sort it out for themselves. The wealth inequality was absolutely insane. It's not like thanks to colonialism, everyone living in the UK victorian era could afford to prop their feet up, live off free stuff taken from the colonies, and never have to work a day in their lives. Quite the contrary, they were working long hours living in poor conditions. The working class only saw lifestyle improvements when they fought back for them.
pydry 4y ago
This has been a pretty normal state of affairs for many societies throughout history. This whole egalitarian "most wealth is earned" thing is if anything more exceptional - it only really started in WW2.

mempko 4y ago

All the important stuff is already owned by the few. It will just get worse. Eventually will lead to a revolution. That's the end game if it keeps going. There needs to be a jubilee and a 'new new' deal to prevent it. However, people in the USA have to acknowledge they are in an empire that's declining. There will be a lot of pain. Look at the British for what that looks like.

nightski 4y ago
I don't feel like that is accurate at all. The most valuable assets by far are successful companies. While it is true that they are owned in large part by a "few" (relative to the total population), that few changes often. We've seen massive changes in wealth in just the past decade alone, particularly in tech.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Yeah, but the systematic problems come from the shape of the pyramid not the identity of the people at the top, so churning them doesn't help.
- spiralx 4y ago
  The most valuable assets by far - accounting for over half of all wealth - are land in highly desirable locations, because both individuals and companies have to pay rent while the landlord pays basically nothing in upkeep in perpetuity while only facing the unlikely risk that rents might drop to zero if the land becomes undesirable - not very likely if you own part of downtown New York, London or any major city.
jjoonathan 4y ago
Exponential growth in a constrained system. A microphone next to a speaker.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  The speaker won't break, it will reach a limit and that's it. Otoh, this constrained system will break.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    Speakers can break :) The behavior when it doesn't break is actually more informative, though. At first, all aspects of the music experience exponential growth. Once clipping sets in, the growth of the loudest / highest gain frequencies continues, but now at the expense of every other frequency. Eventually one frequency wins and the system devolves into the distorted shriek of a single fundamental frequency and its harmonics. The idea here is that we can tell where we are between "free growth" vs "starting to clip" by looking to see how well the rising tide is fulfilling its promise of floating all boats.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
> Eventually will lead to a revolution. I doubt it. 1) That's why the west are pushing for forms of government surveillance disguised as Covid tracking, or anti-terrorist surveillance, or anti-child-porn surveillance, or whatever flavor of the month the current "enemy" happens to be, to make sure they can see it coming and stamp out any potential public dissidence before it hits the elites. 2) Unlike the French or Soviet revolutions from a couple of hundred years ago, which saw the deaths of the elites, the elites of today can travel to remote places using planes to distance themselves from the angry mobs, and rule their empires remotely using the internet. Huge game changers compared to the past.
- bradchris 4y ago
  Every, and I mean _every_, successful revolution was due to the governments/rulers/aristocrats/elites thinking they could successfully quell a revolution with force and distance themselves from the mobs. In the French revolution, which took place in Paris, the elites all lived outside the city. The royal family lived in Versailles. No one went into the city for any day to day business. When the revolution happened, the nobility fled, and they directed their armies to seize and starve the city. They were using all their wealth and power to quell and flee. Much good that did them. Putting the present elite at an even stronger disadvantage, though, is that Western billionaires only have power because the people allow them to -- land, money, stocks, it's all owned on paper. If a revolution is successful, there is no reason a billionaire's wealth or power couldn't be wiped away at the swipe of a pen. Elon Musk does not have enough of a private army nor his wealth in gold to defend his claim to anything.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    I somewhat disagree with your premise but worth noting some American billionaires do in fact have their own armed forces: https://www.indiatimes.com/amp/technology/news/sergey-brin-secret-disaster-relief-team-with-ex-us-military-516282.html https://www.indiatimes.com/amp/technology/news/sergey-brin-s...
    - thebradbain 4y ago

thebradbain 4y ago

Historically, that's when a revolution or regime-change happens. This is something the richest of the rich have either forgotten or mistakenly think they'll be insulated from. Like the line from Titanic when the extravagantly wealthy Calvert is trying to buy himself onto a lifeboat – "Your money can't save you any more than it can save me."

aksss 4y ago
Depends on the scope of “history”. You could also say that historically that’s when a civilization gets put under a feudal yoke for scores of generations. Successful revolution by “the workers” is more the exception than the norm in the story of humanity, I should think. there are plenty of places in the world that are ruled by truly oppressive regimes, and I think most of the world, most of the time, has looked like that, not like the developed “West”.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >not like the developed “West” The west is like this today (apart from the countries that built themselves up on colonial empires of theft) in part also to a lot of violent and sometimes deadly revolts against the ruling class. US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc. all saw bloody strikes and protests, in order to get fair living conditions. Noting was ever given out of pure generosity, without a fight.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The west [...] (apart from the countries that built themselves up on colonial empires of theft) That's...barely a thing at all. > US, UK, France, Italy, etc. If those are your examples, you really don't need the “apart from...”
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      My point was that all the theft from colonialism didn't really improve things much back home for the average folk in those countries later on, as all the stolen wealth ended up in the hands of the few elites, and the working class people were left to sort it out for themselves. The wealth inequality was absolutely insane. It's not like thanks to colonialism, everyone living in the UK victorian era could afford to prop their feet up, live off free stuff taken from the colonies, and never have to work a day in their lives. Quite the contrary, they were working long hours living in poor conditions. The working class only saw lifestyle improvements when they fought back for them.

pydry 4y ago

This has been a pretty normal state of affairs for many societies throughout history. This whole egalitarian "most wealth is earned" thing is if anything more exceptional - it only really started in WW2.