One Billionaire's Suggestion to Address Inequality

[ksen]

http://blog.ted.com/justice-capitalism-and-progress-paul-tudor-jones-ii-at-ted2015/

Paul Tudor Jones recognizes there are only a few ways inequality, historically, gets resolved:

Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars. None are on my bucket list.

Jones doesn't like any of those options so what's his suggestion?

National surveys of corporate behavior

Jones proposes a fourth way: just corporate behavior. He formed Just Capital, a not-for-profit that aims to increase justness in companies. It all starts with defining “justness” — to do this, he is asking the public for input. As it stands, there is no universal standard monitoring company behavior. Tudor and his team will conduct annual national surveys in the US, polling individuals on their top priorities, be it job creation, inventing healthy products or being eco-friendly. Just Capital will release these results annually – keep an eye out for the first survey results this September.

It's interesting that Mr. Jones thinks higher taxes is equivalent to violent revolution and war.

 

[fromderinside]

http://blog.ted.com/justice-capitalism-and-progress-paul-tudor-jones-ii-at-ted2015/

Paul Tudor Jones recognizes there are only a few ways inequality, historically, gets resolved:



Jones doesn't like any of those options so what's his suggestion?

National surveys of corporate behavior

Jones proposes a fourth way: just corporate behavior. He formed Just Capital, a not-for-profit that aims to increase justness in companies. It all starts with defining “justness” — to do this, he is asking the public for input. As it stands, there is no universal standard monitoring company behavior. Tudor and his team will conduct annual national surveys in the US, polling individuals on their top priorities, be it job creation, inventing healthy products or being eco-friendly. Just Capital will release these results annually – keep an eye out for the first survey results this September.

It's interesting that Mr. Jones thinks higher taxes is equivalent to violent revolution and war.

If alternative is equivalence OK. I'm thinking that not being alive is lot worse than suffering higher taxes. Its a choice for the rich isn't it. Pay up or die.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are the rich particularly worried about rampaging Americans coming after them? If they turn off wi-fi in their area, half of the rampaging mob would wander off to somewhere else where they can get a connection and be able to tweet about how they're totally engaging in revolution and the other half would be too morbidly obese to get over the five foot wall surrounding their subdivision.

I don't see it as being a particular concern.

 

[dismal]

Are the rich particularly worried about rampaging Americans coming after them? If they turn off wi-fi in their area, half of the rampaging mob would wander off to somewhere else where they can get a connection and be able to tweet about how they're totally engaging in revolution and the other half would be too morbidly obese to get over the five foot wall surrounding their subdivision.

I don't see it as being a particular concern.

I dunno, those drum circles are pretty scary.

 

[Bronzeage]

Are the rich particularly worried about rampaging Americans coming after them? If they turn off wi-fi in their area, half of the rampaging mob would wander off to somewhere else where they can get a connection and be able to tweet about how they're totally engaging in revolution and the other half would be too morbidly obese to get over the five foot wall surrounding their subdivision.

I don't see it as being a particular concern.

Actually, it's the only thing they worry about.

Threat of social unrest has always been the driving force for social justice in the United States. That's how we got labor unions and the Civil Rights Act.

There is one thing of which the rich are certain and this is that they will always be outnumbered.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are the rich particularly worried about rampaging Americans coming after them? If they turn off wi-fi in their area, half of the rampaging mob would wander off to somewhere else where they can get a connection and be able to tweet about how they're totally engaging in revolution and the other half would be too morbidly obese to get over the five foot wall surrounding their subdivision.

I don't see it as being a particular concern.

Actually, it's the only thing they worry about.

Threat of social unrest has always been the driving force for social justice in the United States. That's how we got labor unions and the Civil Rights Act.

There is one thing of which the rich are certain and this is that they will always be outnumbered.

Yes, but my point is that you're not that country anymore. The people of your country are not any kind of threat to the leadership of your country. You're too lazy, too divided, too selfish and have too short an attention span to pull off what you were once able to pull off.

For instance, do you remember the OWS movement? Neither does anyone else. They were ignored by the people they were trying to get the attention of and then they wandered off and went home having brought about zero change. There's nothing about the people of your country to suggest that future similar movements will be any different. The rich will shrug and ignore them and the media will quickly get bored of the coverage and the protestors will start wandering off having accomplished nothing.

You're not a country peopled by those who could pull off a revolution.

 

[ksen]

fyi, OWS is what put income inequality on the political radar. The movement itself might be gone but the issue it raised is front and center.

 

[Achwienichtig]

http://blog.ted.com/justice-capitalism-and-progress-paul-tudor-jones-ii-at-ted2015/

Paul Tudor Jones recognizes there are only a few ways inequality, historically, gets resolved:



Jones doesn't like any of those options so what's his suggestion?

National surveys of corporate behavior

Jones proposes a fourth way: just corporate behavior. He formed Just Capital, a not-for-profit that aims to increase justness in companies. It all starts with defining “justness” — to do this, he is asking the public for input. As it stands, there is no universal standard monitoring company behavior. Tudor and his team will conduct annual national surveys in the US, polling individuals on their top priorities, be it job creation, inventing healthy products or being eco-friendly. Just Capital will release these results annually – keep an eye out for the first survey results this September.

It's interesting that Mr. Jones thinks higher taxes is equivalent to violent revolution and war.

I have a suggested definition of justness: proportionate incremental taxation with no loopholes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

fyi, OWS is what put income inequality on the political radar. The movement itself might be gone but the issue it raised is front and center.

It did? Most people either knew about it already or just thought OWS was a bunch on unemployed college students. The media never really took OWS seriously, not nearly as seriously as the Obama protests in the Spring/Summer of '13, when teabaggers marched with angry signs about how they threatened revolution if they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

fyi, OWS is what put income inequality on the political radar. The movement itself might be gone but the issue it raised is front and center.

Ya, I don't contest that statement. What I'm contesting is that the rich are in some kind of "pay up or die" scenario or have some reason for worry. They don't have a choice between higher taxes or revolution, they have a choice between higher taxes or ... not higher taxes.

 

[ksen]

fyi, OWS is what put income inequality on the political radar. The movement itself might be gone but the issue it raised is front and center.

It did? Most people either knew about it already or just thought OWS was a bunch on unemployed college students. The media never really took OWS seriously, not nearly as seriously as the Obama protests in the Spring/Summer of '13, when teabaggers marched with angry signs about how they threatened revolution if they didn't get exactly what they wanted.

It did. Income equality was never the issue it became after OWS. In that case it was a success.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well, the powers that be never take the people seriously until they have to.

And eventually they always have to.

 

[Bronzeage]

Actually, it's the only thing they worry about.

Threat of social unrest has always been the driving force for social justice in the United States. That's how we got labor unions and the Civil Rights Act.

There is one thing of which the rich are certain and this is that they will always be outnumbered.

Yes, but my point is that you're not that country anymore. The people of your country are not any kind of threat to the leadership of your country. You're too lazy, too divided, too selfish and have too short an attention span to pull off what you were once able to pull off.

For instance, do you remember the OWS movement? Neither does anyone else. They were ignored by the people they were trying to get the attention of and then they wandered off and went home having brought about zero change. There's nothing about the people of your country to suggest that future similar movements will be any different. The rich will shrug and ignore them and the media will quickly get bored of the coverage and the protestors will start wandering off having accomplished nothing.

You're not a country peopled by those who could pull off a revolution.

If you really think so, you can hide and watch. OWS was a silly idea based on a poor understanding of economics. It was never a threat to the corporate powers, just an inconvenience.

You need to remember one thing, we are an incredibly well armed citizenry. We shoot each other for trivial reasons on a daily basis. If it actually came to true civil strife, we would have no trouble shooting rich people. It would be the nastiest thing next to ISIS pep rally.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes, but my point is that you're not that country anymore. The people of your country are not any kind of threat to the leadership of your country. You're too lazy, too divided, too selfish and have too short an attention span to pull off what you were once able to pull off.

For instance, do you remember the OWS movement? Neither does anyone else. They were ignored by the people they were trying to get the attention of and then they wandered off and went home having brought about zero change. There's nothing about the people of your country to suggest that future similar movements will be any different. The rich will shrug and ignore them and the media will quickly get bored of the coverage and the protestors will start wandering off having accomplished nothing.

You're not a country peopled by those who could pull off a revolution.

If you really think so, you can hide and watch. OWS was a silly idea based on a poor understanding of economics. It was never a threat to the corporate powers, just an inconvenience.

You need to remember one thing, we are an incredibly well armed citizenry. We shoot each other for trivial reasons on a daily basis. If it actually came to true civil strife, we would have no trouble shooting rich people. It would be the nastiest thing next to ISIS pep rally.

They would just move to another island and pull the strings from afar.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Actually, it's the only thing they worry about.

Threat of social unrest has always been the driving force for social justice in the United States. That's how we got labor unions and the Civil Rights Act.

There is one thing of which the rich are certain and this is that they will always be outnumbered.

Yes, but my point is that you're not that country anymore. The people of your country are not any kind of threat to the leadership of your country. You're too lazy, too divided, too selfish and have too short an attention span to pull off what you were once able to pull off.

For instance, do you remember the OWS movement? Neither does anyone else. They were ignored by the people they were trying to get the attention of and then they wandered off and went home having brought about zero change. There's nothing about the people of your country to suggest that future similar movements will be any different. The rich will shrug and ignore them and the media will quickly get bored of the coverage and the protestors will start wandering off having accomplished nothing.

You're not a country peopled by those who could pull off a revolution.

But we are a people who appreciate the difference between bread and circus, even if most of us have never heard of it. And we presently prefer a circus where they serve bread. That's why the fiscally responsible conservative budget proposal balances the budget a decade out by lowering taxes and eliminating social spending and increasing military spending. Does it get any funnier? Throw the bread now! Throw it I say!

 

[coloradoatheist]

Well, the powers that be never take the people seriously until they have to.

And eventually they always have to.

Except that OWS would have been a good time for it, but OWS had no advice, just complaints and people moved on. And the support is not 99% to 1% it's more around 50 to 40 with people undecided.

 

[ksen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you really think so, you can hide and watch. OWS was a silly idea based on a poor understanding of economics. It was never a threat to the corporate powers, just an inconvenience.

You need to remember one thing, we are an incredibly well armed citizenry. We shoot each other for trivial reasons on a daily basis. If it actually came to true civil strife, we would have no trouble shooting rich people. It would be the nastiest thing next to ISIS pep rally.

While your guns make you a threat to each other individually, they don't make you a threat to your government or to the people who've reaped the most benefit from buying it. You could, of course, hole yourselves up in a compound and do a good job of defending yourself against anyone who tried to get you there, but the response of not particularly caring that you've holed yourselves up in a compound and ignoring the fact that you're waiting around in there would be devastatingly effective against you until you got bored of being in the compound and wandered off.

 

[Togo]

I dunno - people are always telling me that the Occupy movement was a failure and didn't change anything, that people are too lazy to achieve anything, and don't really care. And they're generally repeating uncritically what they've been told by some rich guy. I see a world where people are active and full of initiative, making a real difference to those around them, just as they did during Occupy. The business world and government are getting increasing hostile to rich people pulling strings, in a way that was inconceivable back in the 90s, when their influence peddling was routinely smoothed over or ignored.

It's easy to imagine that nothing ever changes, but how many people ever bother to check?

- - - Updated - - -

If you really think so, you can hide and watch. OWS was a silly idea based on a poor understanding of economics. It was never a threat to the corporate powers, just an inconvenience.

You need to remember one thing, we are an incredibly well armed citizenry. We shoot each other for trivial reasons on a daily basis. If it actually came to true civil strife, we would have no trouble shooting rich people. It would be the nastiest thing next to ISIS pep rally.

While your guns make you a threat to each other individually, they don't make you a threat to your government or to the people who've reaped the most benefit from buying it. You could, of course, hole yourselves up in a compound and do a good job of defending yourself against anyone who tried to get you there, but the response of not particularly caring that you've holed yourselves up in a compound and ignoring the fact that you're waiting around in there would be devastatingly effective against you until you got bored of being in the compound and wandered off.

It seems like the main function of a gun is to give anyone, private security, government, anyone with political influence, the excuse to shoot you dead if you step out of line.

 

[Axulus]

The last time we had a series of "mass revolutions" over capitalism, he had a bunch of countries turn into communist hell holes. The only way revolutions like that would happen again is if people forget their history.

Wars was the next on his list - what wars is he referring to? I'm not sure this is really a threat? Is he saying that the poorest countries, like in Africa and Middle East, will start wars with rich countries like Europe, Japan, China, or US? Why would they do that when many of these countries are growing economically at some of the fastest rates in their history, and things are rapidly improving in many of them?

So, with those two unlikely (at least for the foreseeable future), I say we'll see a mix of reasonable taxes and over taxed countries.