5 ms·

Sure, lots of people are in the market. However, a very small portion of people own the overwhelming majority of the market. Top 10% owned 93% of shares in 202

Sure, lots of people are in the market. However, a very small portion of people own the overwhelming majority of the market. Top 10% owned 93% of shares in 2023. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-ownership-wealthiest-americans-one-percent-record-high-economy-2024-1?op=1 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market...

danaris 1y ago
Yes, and that fact—if not the precise proportions—would likely remain true regardless. The rich are in a position to buy up the shares distributed this way, while the non-rich are mostly in a position to need cash most of the time. If you want to tax the rich, just be honest about it and tax the fucking rich. Anything less is simply not going to work.
- Gud 1y ago
  Why would it "not work"? The whole point of my idea is the wealth redistribution. Taxing the rich does not have the same effect as redistributing shares in the economy, from the generational wealthy to everyone else. If the "non rich" receive $50,000 in shares when they are born, that will generate a lot of dividends over the years. They would no longer be born into poverty and would no longer need cash "most of the time". Everyone would get richer, except for the already well off.
  - bruce511 1y ago
    When you are poor, and you need cash, you sell things of value. If you give a rich person 50k in shares, chances are he'll keep it. If you give a poor person 50k in shares, he'll sell it. The rich person has sufficient immediate resources so that he can afford to take a long view. The poor person has immediate needs, and thus has a short term view. Thus one-time wealth transfers are ineffective. Money tends to flow towards money. Those with money are best positioned to start a new business, and extract maximum revenue from that business. Those without money have to earn as employees. Those with money have resources and (especially) time, to educate themselves above their current skillset. In short, any single redistribution is a short term solution. It will have short term benefits, but in the medium term all the wealth will flow back together again. This is not a bug in the system. It is the explicit end-goal of capitalism. You can't fix yhe underlying problem by random redistributions. This is not new. It's been going on for hundreds, or thousands of years. Over and over the cycle repeats. It usually ends in a bloody revolution, with a redistribution. (Think French, Russian revolutions as examples.) Then the wealth simply starts flowing together again. Socialism (as distinct from communism) such as we see in much of Western Europe, seeks to tax economic activity (as distinct to accumulated wealth) [somewhat mitigated by inheritance taxes] to provide a continuous redistribution. Capitalism (such as we see in the US) taxes economic activity in order to funnel funds to the wealthy. (Rich companies get rich govt contracts.) Every person believes their system is the best. This makes changing the system hard. Explaining to a person in the US how the system makes them poor, does not make them vote against the system. It just makes them dream of becoming rich. Unfortunately "simple" schemes such as yours fo not address the underlying cause, only the symptoms. And for this reason it wouldn't achieve the goals you are hoping for. Which is a pity, because those goals are achievable, and some countries have made strides in that direction. Norway, for example, has the sovereign wealth fund. It gives every citizen a dividend every year. It avoids wealth consolidation simply by distributing the dividends, not thd shares themselves.
    - danaris 1y ago
      To be fair to countries that are not Norway, my understanding is that their sovereign wealth fund is significantly funded by their oil fields. (Otherwise, 100% cosigned.)
      - bruce511 1y ago
        Absolutely true. Although lots of countries have oil, and derive profits from it, Norway (as far as i know) was unique in not spending that income, but rather creating the sovereign wealth fund. That long-term thinking, which was fundamentally socialist not capitalist though, is exactly what puts them in such a strong position now.
    - Gud 1y ago
      So your counter argument is that the “poor” person will simply sell it because they are immediately cash strapped. That may very well be true. But first of all, I am not arguing that _poor_ people get ownership shares in the economy, but everyone, at birth. I have no reason to believe that a majority of the population will not be able to manage this wealth. I argue that if each person receives a nest egg, combined with the economic schooling and support required to manage it, most people would not go spend it but would make it grow. You even make this point for me, “ Money tends to flow towards money. Those with money are best positioned to start a new business, and extract maximum revenue from that business. Those without money have to earn as employees. Those with money have resources and (especially) time, to educate themselves above their current skillset.” That is literally my point. By further boosting the working and middle classes, we will give them(us) the tools to create new businesses, build stronger communities. My scheme is not targeted at reducing poverty, although that will be a second order effect. I am mainly interested in building a more stable society with overall more prosperity for the common man. I am neither socialist nor capitalist. I understand both ideologies well.
      - danaris 1y ago
        > My scheme is not targeted at reducing poverty, although that will be a second order effect. I am mainly interested in building a more stable society with overall more prosperity for the common man. ...Regardless of the feasibility of your proposal, I don't think this tracks? Your scheme would give money to people. The first-order effect of that is reducing poverty. Making society more stable is a second-order effect, predicated on that reduction in poverty.

danaris 1y ago

Yes, and that fact—if not the precise proportions—would likely remain true regardless. The rich are in a position to buy up the shares distributed this way, while the non-rich are mostly in a position to need cash most of the time. If you want to tax the rich, just be honest about it and tax the fucking rich. Anything less is simply not going to work.

Gud 1y ago
Why would it "not work"? The whole point of my idea is the wealth redistribution. Taxing the rich does not have the same effect as redistributing shares in the economy, from the generational wealthy to everyone else. If the "non rich" receive $50,000 in shares when they are born, that will generate a lot of dividends over the years. They would no longer be born into poverty and would no longer need cash "most of the time". Everyone would get richer, except for the already well off.
- bruce511 1y ago
  When you are poor, and you need cash, you sell things of value. If you give a rich person 50k in shares, chances are he'll keep it. If you give a poor person 50k in shares, he'll sell it. The rich person has sufficient immediate resources so that he can afford to take a long view. The poor person has immediate needs, and thus has a short term view. Thus one-time wealth transfers are ineffective. Money tends to flow towards money. Those with money are best positioned to start a new business, and extract maximum revenue from that business. Those without money have to earn as employees. Those with money have resources and (especially) time, to educate themselves above their current skillset. In short, any single redistribution is a short term solution. It will have short term benefits, but in the medium term all the wealth will flow back together again. This is not a bug in the system. It is the explicit end-goal of capitalism. You can't fix yhe underlying problem by random redistributions. This is not new. It's been going on for hundreds, or thousands of years. Over and over the cycle repeats. It usually ends in a bloody revolution, with a redistribution. (Think French, Russian revolutions as examples.) Then the wealth simply starts flowing together again. Socialism (as distinct from communism) such as we see in much of Western Europe, seeks to tax economic activity (as distinct to accumulated wealth) [somewhat mitigated by inheritance taxes] to provide a continuous redistribution. Capitalism (such as we see in the US) taxes economic activity in order to funnel funds to the wealthy. (Rich companies get rich govt contracts.) Every person believes their system is the best. This makes changing the system hard. Explaining to a person in the US how the system makes them poor, does not make them vote against the system. It just makes them dream of becoming rich. Unfortunately "simple" schemes such as yours fo not address the underlying cause, only the symptoms. And for this reason it wouldn't achieve the goals you are hoping for. Which is a pity, because those goals are achievable, and some countries have made strides in that direction. Norway, for example, has the sovereign wealth fund. It gives every citizen a dividend every year. It avoids wealth consolidation simply by distributing the dividends, not thd shares themselves.
  - danaris 1y ago
    To be fair to countries that are not Norway, my understanding is that their sovereign wealth fund is significantly funded by their oil fields. (Otherwise, 100% cosigned.)
    - bruce511 1y ago
      Absolutely true. Although lots of countries have oil, and derive profits from it, Norway (as far as i know) was unique in not spending that income, but rather creating the sovereign wealth fund. That long-term thinking, which was fundamentally socialist not capitalist though, is exactly what puts them in such a strong position now.
  - Gud 1y ago
    So your counter argument is that the “poor” person will simply sell it because they are immediately cash strapped. That may very well be true. But first of all, I am not arguing that _poor_ people get ownership shares in the economy, but everyone, at birth. I have no reason to believe that a majority of the population will not be able to manage this wealth. I argue that if each person receives a nest egg, combined with the economic schooling and support required to manage it, most people would not go spend it but would make it grow. You even make this point for me, “ Money tends to flow towards money. Those with money are best positioned to start a new business, and extract maximum revenue from that business. Those without money have to earn as employees. Those with money have resources and (especially) time, to educate themselves above their current skillset.” That is literally my point. By further boosting the working and middle classes, we will give them(us) the tools to create new businesses, build stronger communities. My scheme is not targeted at reducing poverty, although that will be a second order effect. I am mainly interested in building a more stable society with overall more prosperity for the common man. I am neither socialist nor capitalist. I understand both ideologies well.
    - danaris 1y ago
      > My scheme is not targeted at reducing poverty, although that will be a second order effect. I am mainly interested in building a more stable society with overall more prosperity for the common man. ...Regardless of the feasibility of your proposal, I don't think this tracks? Your scheme would give money to people. The first-order effect of that is reducing poverty. Making society more stable is a second-order effect, predicated on that reduction in poverty.