5 ms·

The definition of "Earn" is what most genuine observers would debate. By definition, any interest/dividend bearing asset is a claim on a portion of societal out

by lumost 3y ago

The definition of "Earn" is what most genuine observers would debate. By definition, any interest/dividend bearing asset is a claim on a portion of societal output. As the majority of wealth in the US is now inherited, a rational individual might challenge whether such assets were "Earned". It's easy to take the opposite claim that those "Earnings" are the property of those who produced via income, or even those who consume via net savings. The fine balance between income and savings are well understood through inflation/deflationary cycles - however there are less understood profit cycles. There are many historic examples of the political problems which emerge from too large of a profit burden - such as the French Revolution, Shogunate, Bolshevik's, and arguably the US revolution and Soviet Dissolution.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mercutio2 3y ago
Where did you get the idea “the majority of wealth is now inherited”? I’m curious about your assessment of what fraction of wealth was inherited one and two centuries ago, and how you’re measuring the total stock of wealth. Holding legal title to a thing is one extremely culture specific subset of wealth; being healthy, consuming goods and services is another, having status in your communities of choice is yet another, and control of the levers of societal power is yet another. I am deeply skeptical of the claim that a larger fraction of titled wealth is now inherited than it was centuries ago, and I don’t see how you’d measure these other forms of wealth in a meaningful way.
- lumost 3y ago
  I'm using a simplistic and quantifiable measure of wealth - capital assets. I'd also admit to using a short-hand of wealthy people as equal to billionaires. I don't see the purpose in comparing billionaires quantifiable wealth to other forms of wealth considering the high probability that billionaires are wealthy in all other forms as well. https://www.investopedia.com/more-billionaire-wealth-achieved-through-inheritance-overtaking-entrepreneurship-8409800 https://www.investopedia.com/more-billionaire-wealth-achieve..."
  - mercutio2 3y ago
    This is not a credible source for even the (vastly different from originally stated) claim that billionaires are more likely to hold title to inherited wealth “now”: - it’s a survey. Rich people do not generally agree to do surveys. It’s a survey done by wealth management businesses looking for new clients - it’s a survey across an incredibly short time period, 9 years - it contains the quote “While more of new billionaires' overall wealth was generated by inheritance, the number of new self-made billionaires still surpassed the number of new billionaires who inherited the money.” Finally, most of the effect this link claims to measure is in mainland China. I do not think billionaires inheriting assets is the main policy failure of mainland China, and it doesn’t seem very relevant for a context where you said “As the majority of wealth in the US is now inherited”.
snapplebobapple 3y ago
Ahh, yes the marxist slight of hand to turn compounding on foregone consumption into something evil rather than something that should be applauded and appreciated. Interest/dividends are not claims on societal output. They are voluntary payment for foregoing consumption and allowing that consumption to be used in some enterprise. The profit cycle is just a dumber way of saying the natural outcome of a free market is monopoly, which leads to rent seeking and above marginal cost pricing. A revolution is the dumbest way to solve a monopoly, we have plenty examples of antitrust being used too effectively pre renquist supreme court and there's no reason we can't get back that direction.
- lumost 3y ago
  > Ahh, yes the marxist slight of hand to turn compounding on foregone consumption into something evil rather than something that should be applauded and appreciated. What's the foregone consumption on 1 Billion+ dollars of inheritance? These are sums that outstrip anything but the most conspicuous consumption. An individual who inherited such a sum could live with such consumption their entire lifetime. >antitrust being used too effectively pre renquist supreme court and there's no reason we can't get back that direction. This is likely a prime reason for US resilience to political instability. Recent moves have been to print money to make up for the short-falls induced by wealth concentrating at the top. However this only works provided that the folks to which wealth is concentrating fail to spend the wealth.
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    Someone didn't consume at some point and invested that foregone consumption wisely to get that billion plus dollars, at least in North America. There are still a few left over [hereditary dictatorships] monarchies in Europe that still keep their wealth accumulated through [straight theft] taxation. You're really obsessed with wealth passing from parents to kids and that really isn't the problem. Eventually kids do something dumb enough to dissipate that wealth if they don't have sure thing companies with monopoly power to abuse to shore up their wealth, it just takes a few generations. Go look at where the wealth is from the gilded age families who were mostly broken up by antitrust law for example. There are still a bunch with 5-15 billion in wealth but it's spread out among several hundred families with only a few of them still having real wealth (usually from a later generation descedent making wise business choices for themselves for a long time). They overwhelmingly give it away to charity, drink it, put it up their noise, waste it in other fashions and that's way better to me than the government ruining any incentive to try to become the next rockefeller or gates because it doesnt' involve coercion and confiscation by the government. I think increasing antitrust enforcement and breaking up obviously monopolies/oligopolies is the actual thing we should be doing, it will b far better for society with far more immediate effect and without the outside profits from the private coercion that is an oligopoly it will alleviate some of that large profit you are complaining about being concentrated in a few hands.

by lumost 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mercutio2 3y ago

Where did you get the idea “the majority of wealth is now inherited”? I’m curious about your assessment of what fraction of wealth was inherited one and two centuries ago, and how you’re measuring the total stock of wealth. Holding legal title to a thing is one extremely culture specific subset of wealth; being healthy, consuming goods and services is another, having status in your communities of choice is yet another, and control of the levers of societal power is yet another. I am deeply skeptical of the claim that a larger fraction of titled wealth is now inherited than it was centuries ago, and I don’t see how you’d measure these other forms of wealth in a meaningful way.

lumost 3y ago
I'm using a simplistic and quantifiable measure of wealth - capital assets. I'd also admit to using a short-hand of wealthy people as equal to billionaires. I don't see the purpose in comparing billionaires quantifiable wealth to other forms of wealth considering the high probability that billionaires are wealthy in all other forms as well. https://www.investopedia.com/more-billionaire-wealth-achieved-through-inheritance-overtaking-entrepreneurship-8409800 https://www.investopedia.com/more-billionaire-wealth-achieve..."
- mercutio2 3y ago
  This is not a credible source for even the (vastly different from originally stated) claim that billionaires are more likely to hold title to inherited wealth “now”: - it’s a survey. Rich people do not generally agree to do surveys. It’s a survey done by wealth management businesses looking for new clients - it’s a survey across an incredibly short time period, 9 years - it contains the quote “While more of new billionaires' overall wealth was generated by inheritance, the number of new self-made billionaires still surpassed the number of new billionaires who inherited the money.” Finally, most of the effect this link claims to measure is in mainland China. I do not think billionaires inheriting assets is the main policy failure of mainland China, and it doesn’t seem very relevant for a context where you said “As the majority of wealth in the US is now inherited”.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

Ahh, yes the marxist slight of hand to turn compounding on foregone consumption into something evil rather than something that should be applauded and appreciated. Interest/dividends are not claims on societal output. They are voluntary payment for foregoing consumption and allowing that consumption to be used in some enterprise. The profit cycle is just a dumber way of saying the natural outcome of a free market is monopoly, which leads to rent seeking and above marginal cost pricing. A revolution is the dumbest way to solve a monopoly, we have plenty examples of antitrust being used too effectively pre renquist supreme court and there's no reason we can't get back that direction.

lumost 3y ago
> Ahh, yes the marxist slight of hand to turn compounding on foregone consumption into something evil rather than something that should be applauded and appreciated. What's the foregone consumption on 1 Billion+ dollars of inheritance? These are sums that outstrip anything but the most conspicuous consumption. An individual who inherited such a sum could live with such consumption their entire lifetime. >antitrust being used too effectively pre renquist supreme court and there's no reason we can't get back that direction. This is likely a prime reason for US resilience to political instability. Recent moves have been to print money to make up for the short-falls induced by wealth concentrating at the top. However this only works provided that the folks to which wealth is concentrating fail to spend the wealth.
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  Someone didn't consume at some point and invested that foregone consumption wisely to get that billion plus dollars, at least in North America. There are still a few left over [hereditary dictatorships] monarchies in Europe that still keep their wealth accumulated through [straight theft] taxation. You're really obsessed with wealth passing from parents to kids and that really isn't the problem. Eventually kids do something dumb enough to dissipate that wealth if they don't have sure thing companies with monopoly power to abuse to shore up their wealth, it just takes a few generations. Go look at where the wealth is from the gilded age families who were mostly broken up by antitrust law for example. There are still a bunch with 5-15 billion in wealth but it's spread out among several hundred families with only a few of them still having real wealth (usually from a later generation descedent making wise business choices for themselves for a long time). They overwhelmingly give it away to charity, drink it, put it up their noise, waste it in other fashions and that's way better to me than the government ruining any incentive to try to become the next rockefeller or gates because it doesnt' involve coercion and confiscation by the government. I think increasing antitrust enforcement and breaking up obviously monopolies/oligopolies is the actual thing we should be doing, it will b far better for society with far more immediate effect and without the outside profits from the private coercion that is an oligopoly it will alleviate some of that large profit you are complaining about being concentrated in a few hands.