4 ms·

I feel it's more a question of why should such a small handful of people control such a massive proportion of the world's wealth and power. Especially if it's s

by quasque 13y ago

I feel it's more a question of why should such a small handful of people control such a massive proportion of the world's wealth and power. Especially if it's some form of dynastic wealth. And then there is such a huge, sickening disparity between how the poorest populations of the world live - well over a billion people do not have even their basic needs met - and the excesses of the ultra-rich. I don't have a solution, but it's galling nonetheless.

Qantourisc 13y ago
You made me come up with something: I don't have a problem with the rich, but not at the expense of others. (And we are not talking about everyone a luxurious car, but for some it's about not having a roof and bread.)
- crusso 13y ago
  And we are not talking about everyone a luxurious car, but for some a roof and bread If the discussion were about providing people food and shelter, then we wouldn't even be debating any longer. Those things have been available to everyone in the USA for a long time.
  - quasque 13y ago
    The USA consists of less than 5% of the world population and is not a particularly representative sample. Not really sure why you're using it as a frame of reference to discuss poverty.
  - rpearl 13y ago
    On a single night in January 2013, 610,000 people were homeless in the united states. 215,344 of those people did not have shelter.[1] This is about 1 in every 500 people living in the United states. Furthermore, 15% of the nation is below the poverty line, including 1.65 million households living on less than $2 per day[2]. So, uh... we're not really there yet. There are lots and lots of people in the United States who are just scraping by, living day to day, without hope of things getting better. Why should someone who was good at moving money from place to place not have to work past the age of 35 unless they want to? Why should we who merely shuffle bits from place to place make enormous amounts of money doing it, and have the freedom to pursue our interests, while millions literally suffer? Now, it is okay for us to pursue these interests, to be happy people, but please don't forget what actually is out there. Be compassionate and do what you can to help. [1]https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.pdf https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.... [2]http://npc.umich.edu/publications/u/2013-06-npc-working-paper.pdf http://npc.umich.edu/publications/u/2013-06-npc-working-pape...
crusso 13y ago
Especially if it's some form of dynastic wealth Now here's where I'm NOT going to sound like a Libertarian in this thread and agree with you. Dynastic wealth should be cannibalized in the same way that big chunks of spaghetti code should be thrown away and rewritten. Dynastic wealth is demonstrably not earned and it's harmful to the mobility of others in society.
- tsotha 13y ago
  Dynastic wealth was earned by somebody. The way I look at it we should respect the spending decisions of people who make the money, and in this case the decision was to give it to their children. And it's not like society doesn't take a big bite out of large inheritances - the US takes 40% of the really large ones. And I don't see why you think it's "harmful to the mobility of others".
  - quasque 13y ago
    It may not have been. Throughout history up to the present day there has been much acquisition of wealth via slavery, war, corruption, and other such immoral acts. Wealth is not necessarily earned in as fair a manner as the word implies.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      I'm sure that's true in some cases, but I doubt that's the normal case, and it's incredibly unfair to lump the people who earned their wealth with those who accumulated it in some underhanded way.
  - crusso 13y ago
    Dynastic wealth was earned by somebody I get that, but that somebody is gone. The freedom that we allow each other in life to make what we will of our own labor is gone. the US takes 40% of the really large ones Do you think that the Kennedys lose 40% of their wealth every time one of them dies? Hardly. That money is locked up in trusts and other tax avoidance vehicles so that very little is lost when a member of the family passes. The people losing large amounts due to inheritance taxes are the ones on the bubble who maybe have a few million dollars to pass on, but aren't steeped enough in wealth to be able to take advantage of the real loopholes in the system. As with most cases, those people in the upper middle are the ones who bear the brunt of being "rich" without the protections of being truly wealthy. And I don't see why you think it's "harmful to the mobility of others". The biggest threats to a thriving free, capitalistic society are monopolies and corruption. Big government, crony capitalism, corporate monopolies, massive military-industrial complexes, and dynastic wealth all contribute heavily to those core problems. They are so fundamentally powerful that they rewrite the rules(laws) of the society to protect themselves by stifling smaller players. Dynastic wealth is power without the wisdom of having earned it. It's easy access to the force of government without really understanding how government impacts the capitalistic foundations of the society. I sympathize with those who want to leave money to their children after they die, and I definitely think that you should be able to leave something to them - but the dark side of capitalism that is dynastic wealth should really be dealt with.

by quasque 13y ago

Qantourisc 13y ago

You made me come up with something: I don't have a problem with the rich, but not at the expense of others. (And we are not talking about everyone a luxurious car, but for some it's about not having a roof and bread.)

crusso 13y ago
And we are not talking about everyone a luxurious car, but for some a roof and bread If the discussion were about providing people food and shelter, then we wouldn't even be debating any longer. Those things have been available to everyone in the USA for a long time.
- quasque 13y ago
  The USA consists of less than 5% of the world population and is not a particularly representative sample. Not really sure why you're using it as a frame of reference to discuss poverty.
- rpearl 13y ago
  On a single night in January 2013, 610,000 people were homeless in the united states. 215,344 of those people did not have shelter.[1] This is about 1 in every 500 people living in the United states. Furthermore, 15% of the nation is below the poverty line, including 1.65 million households living on less than $2 per day[2]. So, uh... we're not really there yet. There are lots and lots of people in the United States who are just scraping by, living day to day, without hope of things getting better. Why should someone who was good at moving money from place to place not have to work past the age of 35 unless they want to? Why should we who merely shuffle bits from place to place make enormous amounts of money doing it, and have the freedom to pursue our interests, while millions literally suffer? Now, it is okay for us to pursue these interests, to be happy people, but please don't forget what actually is out there. Be compassionate and do what you can to help. [1]https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.pdf https://www.onecpd.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.... [2]http://npc.umich.edu/publications/u/2013-06-npc-working-paper.pdf http://npc.umich.edu/publications/u/2013-06-npc-working-pape...

crusso 13y ago

Especially if it's some form of dynastic wealth Now here's where I'm NOT going to sound like a Libertarian in this thread and agree with you. Dynastic wealth should be cannibalized in the same way that big chunks of spaghetti code should be thrown away and rewritten. Dynastic wealth is demonstrably not earned and it's harmful to the mobility of others in society.

tsotha 13y ago
Dynastic wealth was earned by somebody. The way I look at it we should respect the spending decisions of people who make the money, and in this case the decision was to give it to their children. And it's not like society doesn't take a big bite out of large inheritances - the US takes 40% of the really large ones. And I don't see why you think it's "harmful to the mobility of others".
- quasque 13y ago
  It may not have been. Throughout history up to the present day there has been much acquisition of wealth via slavery, war, corruption, and other such immoral acts. Wealth is not necessarily earned in as fair a manner as the word implies.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    I'm sure that's true in some cases, but I doubt that's the normal case, and it's incredibly unfair to lump the people who earned their wealth with those who accumulated it in some underhanded way.
- crusso 13y ago
  Dynastic wealth was earned by somebody I get that, but that somebody is gone. The freedom that we allow each other in life to make what we will of our own labor is gone. the US takes 40% of the really large ones Do you think that the Kennedys lose 40% of their wealth every time one of them dies? Hardly. That money is locked up in trusts and other tax avoidance vehicles so that very little is lost when a member of the family passes. The people losing large amounts due to inheritance taxes are the ones on the bubble who maybe have a few million dollars to pass on, but aren't steeped enough in wealth to be able to take advantage of the real loopholes in the system. As with most cases, those people in the upper middle are the ones who bear the brunt of being "rich" without the protections of being truly wealthy. And I don't see why you think it's "harmful to the mobility of others". The biggest threats to a thriving free, capitalistic society are monopolies and corruption. Big government, crony capitalism, corporate monopolies, massive military-industrial complexes, and dynastic wealth all contribute heavily to those core problems. They are so fundamentally powerful that they rewrite the rules(laws) of the society to protect themselves by stifling smaller players. Dynastic wealth is power without the wisdom of having earned it. It's easy access to the force of government without really understanding how government impacts the capitalistic foundations of the society. I sympathize with those who want to leave money to their children after they die, and I definitely think that you should be able to leave something to them - but the dark side of capitalism that is dynastic wealth should really be dealt with.