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.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).
I didn't know we were related!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.
Oh I'm sure if I trawled through your 9,000 odd posts I will find some evidence of your positive contribution to societyI didn't know we were related!
I doubt it!Oh I'm sure if I trawled through your 9,000 odd posts I will find some evidence of your positive contribution to society
I acknowledge.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?
But first what do you perceive as the big damage to the rest of us other than the natural instinct of envy and resentment?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?