500 Richest gain additional $1.2trn in 2019

W

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,083
What a wonderful world

They must have worked so hard, upskilling, to make all this additional money on top of their existing fortunes.

Dont get me wrong, im all for anyone and everyone making as much money as they can.
But surely there is a limit? Surely there comes a point where accumulated wealth can be defined as excessive and ultimately capped?
Why are the 99.99% so submissive and meek when it comes to the centralising of so much wealth into the hands of so few?
 
Most of this wealth would be in shares and financial assets, therefore it is because of the big rise in the share prices of the big tech companies, like Amazon, Apple Microsoft etc ,therefore the top guys with shares see the nominal value of their wealth increase.
However its also the case that the market capitalization of Apple is worth more than the total US energy sector that's all the big oil companies combined. If there was another tech meltdown then all of that nominal wealth would evaporate again, but nothing would really change.
 
Yes, I didn't think it was because of working overtime and Sundays.
Nevertheless, the increases for each individual are massive - beyond what anyone could ever reasonably need, beyond what anyone could reasonably figure out what to do with (except to invest in more shares and property to further increase personal wealth).
 
WolfeTone said:
Yes, I didn't think it was because of working overtime and Sundays.
Nevertheless, the increases for each individual are massive - beyond what anyone could ever reasonably need, beyond what anyone could reasonably figure out what to do with (except to invest in more shares and property to further increase personal wealth).
Click to expand...
I suppose the argument is that the wealth is created, not acquired and that it is invested, not stuffed under a (massive) mattress. I do agree that the concentration of wealth in the developed world is a problem.
 
It is of course an illusion to think that this wealth could be redistributed and we would all live happily ever after. As a general rule modern economies are operating at optimal productivity i.e. producing the optimal sustainable amount of goods and services, give or take the vagaries of the business cycle and the occasional financial crisis. The point is that these guys cannot possibly consume this amount of paper wealth. If it was redistributed to the homeless say, or even worse to the "stretched middle", it would not sustainably increase overall economic output which as I say is broadly optimal and would merely increase the price level.

Norway is a very interesting case in point. It's Oil sovereign wealth fund is worth c.200K for every man woman and child in the country. Understandably there are political pressures to release at least some of this into current expenditure, Norway does have homeless folk also. But this is resisted on the basis that it would be largely inflationary.

But I am not above a bit of begrudgery myself. Whom I do begrudge are the 3rd cousins twice removed of these fabulously wealthy guys who presumably are kept in the lap of luxury by the Cousin without doing a day's work in their lives.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
It is of course an illusion to think that this wealth could be redistributed and we would all live happily ever after. As a general rule modern economies are operating at optimal productivity i.e. producing the optimal sustainable amount of goods and services, give or take the vagaries of the business cycle and the occasional financial crisis. The point is that these guys cannot possibly consume this amount of paper wealth. If it was redistributed to the homeless say, or even worse the "stretched middle", it would not sustainably increase overall economic output which as I say is broadly optimal and would merely increase the price level.

Norway is a very interesting case in point. It's Oil sovereign wealth fund is worth c.200K for every man woman and child in the country. Understandably there are political pressures to release at least some of this into current expenditure, Norway does have homeless folk also. But this is resisted on the basis that it would be largely inflationary.

But I am not above a bit of begrudgery myself. Whom I do begrudge are the 3rd cousins twice removed of these fabulously wealthy guys who presumably are kept in the lap of luxury by the Cousin without doing a day's work in their lives.
Click to expand...
I didn't know we were related!
 
@Duke of Marmalade yes you nailed in your explanation. If for example the wealth was redistributed so that a worker in a food factory or a building labourer decided he got enough extra money that he doesn't need to do that work anymore, then less food is produced, less buildings are built therefore the cumulative production of goods goes down, everyone is actually poorer because there are less goods to go around. It could also be an explanation of the housing crisis, the much higher welfare payments today discourages people from doing the labouring work as they already get enough on welfare.
 
I agree with most of the above, to an extent.
It would be a nonsense to assume that the money could simply be re-distributed and all will be well.
But the point I tried (somewhat rashly) to make is that the it is the structure of this economic system that facilitates the accumulation of such vast wealth into the hands of few.
As Purple succinctly referred, wealth creation and wealth acquired are two different things altogether.
And the point of this thread is to acknowledge first, that the wealth acquired by the wealthiest of the wealthiest, is simply beyond any reasonable comprehension or need for anyone individual, and then multiplied by some light years.
If that is acknowledged, then what to do? And what consequences, positive/negative would there be following any limitations of imposed on such wealth?

The Duke referred to price levels rising which is a fair point, but by itself hardly a reason not to limit wealth accumulation.
Ask any Central bank in the Western world if, over the last decade would they like some price inflation, and most would gladly grab it.
Price levels rising or falling, are inconsequential without knowledge of other critical factors of the economy that those prices relate to.
 
I think when we talk about money we forget that it is really an abstraction, it is not actually wealth in itself. It only has value in a properly functioning economy where most people are working and producing goods. If you mess around with it where that no longer happens then everything collapses including the value of that money. We have seen that happen in the Soviet union, everyone was paid the same, there were price controls, everyone had enough money to buy the goods but crucially the goods were not produced in the quantities needed to satisfy the population.
Unfortunately there are tough hard jobs in every economy that somebody has to do, those are the first guys that will quit their jobs in any sort of wealth redistribution. This happened also in the Soviet union that's why they used prisoners and forced labour to do this work.
 
WolfeTone said:
And the point of this thread is to acknowledge first, that the wealth acquired by the wealthiest of the wealthiest, is simply beyond any reasonable comprehension or need for anyone individual, and then multiplied by some light years.
If that is acknowledged, then what to do? And what consequences, positive/negative would there be following any limitations of imposed on such wealth?
Click to expand...
I acknowledge.
What to do? A few suggestions.
1. Confiscate and redistribute. I think you accept that this is an economic illusion. This is quite different from the accumulation of wealth by Louis XVI court which was on the backs of the people.
2. Confiscate full stop. It might satisfy a certain envy syndrome. Not to be sneezed at as I think for example the unseemly competition for top executives to leap frog each other in multi million pay awards is driven by jealosy and egotism and is not conducive to socio-economic harmony. However given international competition for these captains of industry (tax havens etc.) confiscation would seem to need international co-operation, so is not really an option. Anyway, it is far from proven that the bulk of the populace are in any way disadvantaged (other than in resentment) by this concentration of paper wealth.)
3. Change the system. As joe sod has pointed out, this was tried but was abandoned as an obvious failure in 1989.

Any suggestions yourself? But first what do you perceive as the big damage to the rest of us other than the natural instinct of envy and resentment?
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
But first what do you perceive as the big damage to the rest of us other than the natural instinct of envy and resentment?
Click to expand...

Simply too hard a question to quantify with a precise answer. But simple observations of humankind in general tend to show our common human trait to want more. But as an intelligent species we are capable of recognizing when excessive amounts wealth acquired go beyond any reasonable need, as you acknowledge yourself.

The damage? Lost opportunity to access education, healthcare, protection of the environment etc.

What to do? Not having the answer is no reason not to search for the answer.
Attempts to distribute wealth through centralised command economies are doomed to fail, at worst, at best cause the same damage.

So as a social experiment, 100% taxation on any new acquired wealth by the top 500 wealthiest people in the world.
In 2019 that would net $1.2trn.
If the 500 take to the capital streets to protest it might be something we just have to live with.
My guess, such a move would barely register a shrug of the shoulders.
 
WolfeTone said:
The damage? Lost opportunity to access education, healthcare, protection of the environment etc.

So as a social experiment, 100% taxation on any new acquired wealth by the top 500 wealthiest people in the world.
In 2019 that would net $1.2trn.
Click to expand...
Those 500 are not and have not in any way reduced my access to education, healthcare, food, shelter, entertainment, travel etc. etc. We are not talking Louis Seize's court robbing the populace. If anything, the 500 may have even contributed a little to my well being, but I won't labour the point.

Your statement that by confiscating this "money" we would "net $1.2trn" suggests that the economic arguments about the entire naiveté of this assertion made by me and joe sod have gone completely over your head. Maybe it would help if you thought about how a 4 year old might rephrase your suggestion: "Dad do you know how many lollipops you could buy with $1.2trn?". Think what it would do to our economy if we took up that suggestion!
On reflection I think I should back off any discussion on macro economics.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Those 500 are not and have not in any way reduced my access to education, healthcare, food, shelter, entertainment, travel etc. etc. We are not talking Louis Seize's court robbing the populace. If anything, the 500 may have even contributed a little to my well being, but I won't labour the point.

Your statement that by confiscating this "money" we would "net $1.2trn" suggests that the economic arguments about the entire naiveté of this assertion made by me and joe sod have gone completely over your head. Maybe it would help if you thought about how a 4 year old might rephrase your suggestion: "Dad do you know how many lollipops you could buy with $1.2trn?". Think what it would do to our economy if we took up that suggestion!
On reflection I think I should back off any discussion on macro economics.
Click to expand...

I make it 558,139,534,883,721 lollipops...… Lets do it.
 
Ouch! That one hurt Duke. Quite the abrupt response to a somewhat throw-it-out-there-, shooting-the-breeze-topic.

Far from economic arguments proffered by yourself and joe sod going over my head, I have fully accepted the points made.

Its the point I made - about targeting only 500 people - that has gone over your head.

Notably, it is the second time in a week that you are attempting to shut down discussion, debate.

Should you choose to back off from any macro economic discussion is your prerogative. Certainly, limiting a comment about access to education, healthcare etc to your experiences would support that decision.
Mé-féinism, is the complete antithesis of discussing the underlying message of income inequality at macro level.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting development. It has more substance than my off-the-cuff proposal of targeting the top 500 wealthiest.

www.gov.uk

New executive pay transparency measures come into force

New regulations come into force today to improve transparency on executive pay.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

Albeit, it seems a little watery to me to make any real impact on income disparities.
But at least its an idea, better than the "everything has been tried before, nothing works better than the current system" herd mentality.
 
WolfeTone said:
Ouch! That one hurt Duke. Quite the abrupt response to a somewhat throw-it-out-there-, shooting-the-breeze-topic.

Far from economic arguments proffered by yourself and joe sod going over my head, I have fully accepted the points made.

Its the point I made - about targeting only 500 people - that has gone over your head.

Notably, it is the second time in a week that you are attempting to shut down discussion, debate.

Should you choose to back off from any macro economic discussion is your prerogative. Certainly, limiting a comment about access to education, healthcare etc to your experiences would support that decision.
Mé-féinism, is the complete antithesis of discussing the underlying message of income inequality at macro level.
Click to expand...
Okay, apologies, we are just shooting the breeze. Yes the amount these guys "earn" is simply mind blowing, but I should have resisted the urge to counter any supposed simplistic suggestion for redistribution.:oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top