5 ms·

> This is tautologous. No, it's not, and it's a problem that you're thinking this way. A tautology would be "Americans in the top 10% of wealth are wealthier t

> This is tautologous. No, it's not, and it's a problem that you're thinking this way. A tautology would be "Americans in the top 10% of wealth are wealthier than the bottom 90%." A tautology is necessarily true according to logic. Logic does not dictate that the top 10% own 90% of the equities. And, in fact, there's a strong argument that societies with extreme inequality in wealth distribution are structurally unsound societies (I don't mean that they're economically unsound, though I'd argue that, too).

robertlagrant 3y ago
I'm saying "owning most of the stocks" is completely equivalent to "wealthiest". The exact percentage isn't important. It's not as though those wealthy people need to have lots of actual cash to be considered wealthy in such stats; they just need to own enough of a company that's providing lots of value, or due to, that drives up the wealth stat. > there's a strong argument that societies with extreme inequality in wealth distribution are structurally unsound societies (I don't mean that they're economically unsound, though I'd argue that, too). This just depends on how you define "structurally unsound" and "economically unsound".
- ang_cire 3y ago
  > "owning most of the stocks" is completely equivalent to "wealthiest" That's still not a tautology just because in practice it is usually true, and is easily disproven as such: Stock values could all nosedive to nothing, and the wealthiest people would still mostly all be the wealthiest due to non-stock assets.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > is easily disproven as such Not that easy. If the wealthy own 90% of the stocks and 90% of their wealth is in stocks, and the stocks disappeared, they may still be wealthy due to the remainder, but still the bulk of the their wealth was in stocks.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > The exact percentage isn't important. The exact percentage is exactly critical informarion. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the 10% own 100% of all net worth. Imagine net worth of 90% of the population is exactly at zero. Do you think democracy would still function, liberty would survive? The folks at zero would be closer to slaves than to anything we recognise today.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    They will still have wealth because that wealth is their ability to work and produce value.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      I see you are to misuse words to mean something other thant what they actually mean.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        A considerable part of the wealth of slaveowners was the value of their slaves. Slaves were traded for a lot of money. That means, economically speaking, if you own yourself you have that wealth.

robertlagrant 3y ago

I'm saying "owning most of the stocks" is completely equivalent to "wealthiest". The exact percentage isn't important. It's not as though those wealthy people need to have lots of actual cash to be considered wealthy in such stats; they just need to own enough of a company that's providing lots of value, or due to, that drives up the wealth stat. > there's a strong argument that societies with extreme inequality in wealth distribution are structurally unsound societies (I don't mean that they're economically unsound, though I'd argue that, too). This just depends on how you define "structurally unsound" and "economically unsound".

ang_cire 3y ago
> "owning most of the stocks" is completely equivalent to "wealthiest" That's still not a tautology just because in practice it is usually true, and is easily disproven as such: Stock values could all nosedive to nothing, and the wealthiest people would still mostly all be the wealthiest due to non-stock assets.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > is easily disproven as such Not that easy. If the wealthy own 90% of the stocks and 90% of their wealth is in stocks, and the stocks disappeared, they may still be wealthy due to the remainder, but still the bulk of the their wealth was in stocks.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> The exact percentage isn't important. The exact percentage is exactly critical informarion. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that the 10% own 100% of all net worth. Imagine net worth of 90% of the population is exactly at zero. Do you think democracy would still function, liberty would survive? The folks at zero would be closer to slaves than to anything we recognise today.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  They will still have wealth because that wealth is their ability to work and produce value.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    I see you are to misuse words to mean something other thant what they actually mean.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      A considerable part of the wealth of slaveowners was the value of their slaves. Slaves were traded for a lot of money. That means, economically speaking, if you own yourself you have that wealth.