Ultra-Rich: Divest Heavily or Get Eaten

[Rhea]

I often think of the grotesque wealth of these people and what should happen in the context of the game of "Settlers of Catan." That is, they _say_ they are good people (Gates, e.g. or Buffet) but they still have grotesque amounts of money. Not lots of money, but grotesque amounts that continue to grow in unfair and unfairly protected ways.

So I feel that I'd like to see them divest themselves in a way they claim they consider fair. Don't dribble out amounts to vaccines, but really dump it - spin off a huge chunk that does vast good. And have a less grotesque amount remaining. And reduce your income to below grotesque levels. Let your people who produce for you keep more of the fruits of their labor. Don't take it just because you can.

And if, after 5 years, you haven't found a way to do this, then half gets taken (or 80%, even,) until you are below a grotesque amount. Just like the Robber Baron send half your resources back to the deck if you are holding more than 7 cards in "Catan" when someone rolls a 7. There's a parallel in history to this, when the inequity becomes too egregious, the uprising causes heads to roll. So pro-tip to the grotesquely wealthy - better to not wait for heads to roll.


Anyway, just something I think about. That change can have a sort of saw-tooth pattern, and it ain't pretty getting caught in the saw. When people are fed up, they are far beyond their sense of forbearance - far beyond.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I often think of the grotesque wealth of these people and what should happen in the context of the game of "Settlers of Catan." That is, they _say_ they are good people (Gates, e.g. or Buffet) but they still have grotesque amounts of money. Not lots of money, but grotesque amounts that continue to grow in unfair and unfairly protected ways.

So I feel that I'd like to see them divest themselves in a way they claim they consider fair. Don't dribble out amounts to vaccines, but really dump it - spin off a huge chunk that does vast good. And have a less grotesque amount remaining. And reduce your income to below grotesque levels. Let your people who produce for you keep more of the fruits of their labor. Don't take it just because you can.

And if, after 5 years, you haven't found a way to do this, then half gets taken (or 80%, even,) until you are below a grotesque amount. Just like the Robber Baron send half your resources back to the deck if you are holding more than 7 cards in "Catan" when someone rolls a 7. There's a parallel in history to this, when the inequity becomes too egregious, the uprising causes heads to roll. So pro-tip to the grotesquely wealthy - better to not wait for heads to roll.


Anyway, just something I think about. That change can have a sort of saw-tooth pattern, and it ain't pretty getting caught in the saw. When people are fed up, they are far beyond their sense of forbearance - far beyond.

Well, like you say, both Gates and Buffet the the good guys! I don't know as much about Gates, but Buffet has far less cash than what you think. The vast majority of his wealth is in stocks. He donates incredible amounts to charity (vacinnes for the poor, economic development for inner city youth, environmental clean up and etc.) There are several proposals to clean the ocean that are being studied right now by his foundation. If he bankrolls this, could have incredible impact on the world. Finally, he plans to donate 99% of his wealth at his death.

I think that if people are uncomfortable with wealth, the best most fair way to address this is to tax it steeply at the owner's death.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I often think of the grotesque wealth of these people and what should happen in the context of the game of "Settlers of Catan." That is, they _say_ they are good people (Gates, e.g. or Buffet) but they still have grotesque amounts of money. Not lots of money, but grotesque amounts that continue to grow in unfair and unfairly protected ways.

So I feel that I'd like to see them divest themselves in a way they claim they consider fair. Don't dribble out amounts to vaccines, but really dump it - spin off a huge chunk that does vast good. And have a less grotesque amount remaining. And reduce your income to below grotesque levels. Let your people who produce for you keep more of the fruits of their labor. Don't take it just because you can.

And if, after 5 years, you haven't found a way to do this, then half gets taken (or 80%, even,) until you are below a grotesque amount. Just like the Robber Baron send half your resources back to the deck if you are holding more than 7 cards in "Catan" when someone rolls a 7. There's a parallel in history to this, when the inequity becomes too egregious, the uprising causes heads to roll. So pro-tip to the grotesquely wealthy - better to not wait for heads to roll.


Anyway, just something I think about. That change can have a sort of saw-tooth pattern, and it ain't pretty getting caught in the saw. When people are fed up, they are far beyond their sense of forbearance - far beyond.

You gave two examples, Gates and Buffet. Lets look at Buffet more carefully--does he actually have large amounts of money? No. He has a controlling interest in Berkshire Hathaway. It's the ability to direct the company that counts--you take away that money, you take away that control and you kill that golden goose. Leave it alone and the vast majority goes to charity.

In your quest to destroy the rich you would take tens of billions from charity.

 

[Rhea]

The argument is, “they don’t have a lot of liquidity in their wealth and therefore it is not grotesque?”

The argument is that Buffet needs to hold onto that wealth so that he can continue to weild dramatic power?
And that is somehow a “must”? All of it?

I’m sure that kind of argument was compelling to the revolutionaries throughout history.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I often think of the grotesque wealth of these people and what should happen in the context of the game of "Settlers of Catan." That is, they _say_ they are good people (Gates, e.g. or Buffet) but they still have grotesque amounts of money. Not lots of money, but grotesque amounts that continue to grow in unfair and unfairly protected ways.

So I feel that I'd like to see them divest themselves in a way they claim they consider fair. Don't dribble out amounts to vaccines, but really dump it - spin off a huge chunk that does vast good. And have a less grotesque amount remaining. And reduce your income to below grotesque levels. Let your people who produce for you keep more of the fruits of their labor. Don't take it just because you can.

And if, after 5 years, you haven't found a way to do this, then half gets taken (or 80%, even,) until you are below a grotesque amount. Just like the Robber Baron send half your resources back to the deck if you are holding more than 7 cards in "Catan" when someone rolls a 7. There's a parallel in history to this, when the inequity becomes too egregious, the uprising causes heads to roll. So pro-tip to the grotesquely wealthy - better to not wait for heads to roll.


Anyway, just something I think about. That change can have a sort of saw-tooth pattern, and it ain't pretty getting caught in the saw. When people are fed up, they are far beyond their sense of forbearance - far beyond.

You gave two examples, Gates and Buffet. Lets look at Buffet more carefully--does he actually have large amounts of money? No. He has a controlling interest in Berkshire Hathaway. It's the ability to direct the company that counts--you take away that money, you take away that control and you kill that golden goose. Leave it alone and the vast majority goes to charity.

In your quest to destroy the rich you would take tens of billions from charity.

Citation required.

You take away a lot of that wealth, and this is important: because it can then be used for charity and social support at all levels.

 

[Elixir]

You take away a lot of that wealth, and this is important: because it can then be used for charity and social support at all levels.

I think of it more like restoring a social balance that largely obviates the need for charity.

 

[Toni]

I often think of the grotesque wealth of these people and what should happen in the context of the game of "Settlers of Catan." That is, they _say_ they are good people (Gates, e.g. or Buffet) but they still have grotesque amounts of money. Not lots of money, but grotesque amounts that continue to grow in unfair and unfairly protected ways.

So I feel that I'd like to see them divest themselves in a way they claim they consider fair. Don't dribble out amounts to vaccines, but really dump it - spin off a huge chunk that does vast good. And have a less grotesque amount remaining. And reduce your income to below grotesque levels. Let your people who produce for you keep more of the fruits of their labor. Don't take it just because you can.

And if, after 5 years, you haven't found a way to do this, then half gets taken (or 80%, even,) until you are below a grotesque amount. Just like the Robber Baron send half your resources back to the deck if you are holding more than 7 cards in "Catan" when someone rolls a 7. There's a parallel in history to this, when the inequity becomes too egregious, the uprising causes heads to roll. So pro-tip to the grotesquely wealthy - better to not wait for heads to roll.


Anyway, just something I think about. That change can have a sort of saw-tooth pattern, and it ain't pretty getting caught in the saw. When people are fed up, they are far beyond their sense of forbearance - far beyond.

You gave two examples, Gates and Buffet. Lets look at Buffet more carefully--does he actually have large amounts of money? No. He has a controlling interest in Berkshire Hathaway. It's the ability to direct the company that counts--you take away that money, you take away that control and you kill that golden goose. Leave it alone and the vast majority goes to charity.

In your quest to destroy the rich you would take tens of billions from charity.

Some might say that if income and wealth were better, more evenly and fairly distributed, there would be far less need for charity.

Normally, I would say that governmental bodies are the best to address large problems such as need for vaccine, clean environment, etc. Actually until 3.8 years ago, that's exactly what I would have said. Now, we have a good example of a government looking to exploit the environment and everything they can get their hands on in order to further enrich a handful of people.

It's great that Gates is (now) making massive donations during his lifetime and plans to donate the majority after his death, leaving his kids well off but not obscenely so. I am not entirely certain why wealthy people want to wait until their death to donate their riches. I understand wanting to have enough money to be assured of a comfortable life even if things go a bit bad or really bad but we have people who have that much wealth many, many, many times over--and they are going to hold onto it until they die. Why? It seems to me that rather than giving away money after I was dead, I'd rather do it before I died (while maintaining enough to ensure that my needs are covered) in order to see the my generosity have the positive effects I so desire. After all, how does society benefit by raising another generation of poor children who grow up in an unsafe environment, without access to decent food and housing or health care or education? Why not address those problems NOW?

I understand that giving away money on the scale that Gates and the ex Mrs. Bezos and Buffet are giving away and intend to give away takes a great deal of careful planning. On my scale of wealth, it's the difference between handing a panhandler a $100 bill vs donating that to a food shelf or United Way or a foundation. Sure, that panhandler may well need and put to better use that $100---or may use it for bad purposes. So, I see why they want to do it in a careful, controlled manner and see how well ideas and foundations, etc. actually work handling the wealth, if they achieve goals and really make life better. But still: billions of dollars in a single person's hands? I have a hard time not seeing that as obscene. And vain.

I think a better, more fair system would ensure that everyone had a living wage, access to excellent and affordable health care (even if affordable means free)--including mental health services (which, imo, is our best shot at reducing substance abuse), vaccinations, and birth control and preventative health care, excellent and affordable education through university and grad/professional schools (even where that means free), a clean and healthy environment, decent housing, secure and healthy food, well maintained roads, and public transportation, and the services needed to maintain a thriving society.

I think we will always have people who are wealthy and we will always have even more people who are poor. But why not do our best to minimize each? Provide checks and balances on the wealthy and safety nets and ways out for the poor?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The argument is, “they don’t have a lot of liquidity in their wealth and therefore it is not grotesque?”

The argument is that Buffet needs to hold onto that wealth so that he can continue to weild dramatic power?
And that is somehow a “must”? All of it?

I’m sure that kind of argument was compelling to the revolutionaries throughout history.

He's doing a lot of good with that wealth--a good you would destroy by taking it away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I often think of the grotesque wealth of these people and what should happen in the context of the game of "Settlers of Catan." That is, they _say_ they are good people (Gates, e.g. or Buffet) but they still have grotesque amounts of money. Not lots of money, but grotesque amounts that continue to grow in unfair and unfairly protected ways.

So I feel that I'd like to see them divest themselves in a way they claim they consider fair. Don't dribble out amounts to vaccines, but really dump it - spin off a huge chunk that does vast good. And have a less grotesque amount remaining. And reduce your income to below grotesque levels. Let your people who produce for you keep more of the fruits of their labor. Don't take it just because you can.

And if, after 5 years, you haven't found a way to do this, then half gets taken (or 80%, even,) until you are below a grotesque amount. Just like the Robber Baron send half your resources back to the deck if you are holding more than 7 cards in "Catan" when someone rolls a 7. There's a parallel in history to this, when the inequity becomes too egregious, the uprising causes heads to roll. So pro-tip to the grotesquely wealthy - better to not wait for heads to roll.


Anyway, just something I think about. That change can have a sort of saw-tooth pattern, and it ain't pretty getting caught in the saw. When people are fed up, they are far beyond their sense of forbearance - far beyond.

You gave two examples, Gates and Buffet. Lets look at Buffet more carefully--does he actually have large amounts of money? No. He has a controlling interest in Berkshire Hathaway. It's the ability to direct the company that counts--you take away that money, you take away that control and you kill that golden goose. Leave it alone and the vast majority goes to charity.

In your quest to destroy the rich you would take tens of billions from charity.

Citation required.

You take away a lot of that wealth, and this is important: because it can then be used for charity and social support at all levels.

That's already what's going to become of it, just after he's made it into an even bigger pile. Taking 100% of it and directing it to charity would produce less benefit than the status quo.

 

[DBT]

The argument is, “they don’t have a lot of liquidity in their wealth and therefore it is not grotesque?”

The argument is that Buffet needs to hold onto that wealth so that he can continue to weild dramatic power?
And that is somehow a “must”? All of it?

I’m sure that kind of argument was compelling to the revolutionaries throughout history.

He's doing a lot of good with that wealth--a good you would destroy by taking it away.

Are you doing good if you take far more than you give?

 

[DBT]

I am no defender of dog-eat-dog capitalism, but I think the following comment is ill-conceived.

He's doing a lot of good with that wealth--a good you would destroy by taking it away.

Are you doing good if you take far more than you give?

What has Buffett "taken"? He has great paper wealth, but his life-style is rather frugal.

We can argue that, far from taking, Buffett's efforts have contributed to general prosperity. His investment in See's Candies, for example, helps ensure that Americans have good chocolates! Sure, if you treat the stock market as zero-sum (a flawed treatment) then his winnings are other people's losses, but so what? That's the nature of the game: Are you a "taker" just because you bought detergent when it was on sale?

[reference to thread topic from which this was split is removed]

A growing concentration of wealth at the top end, where a small percentage of the nations or worlds population have more than the rest combined is a case of taking more than you give. It doesn't matter whether or not Buffett lives a frugal lifestyle.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The argument is, “they don’t have a lot of liquidity in their wealth and therefore it is not grotesque?”

The argument is that Buffet needs to hold onto that wealth so that he can continue to weild dramatic power?
And that is somehow a “must”? All of it?

I’m sure that kind of argument was compelling to the revolutionaries throughout history.

He's doing a lot of good with that wealth--a good you would destroy by taking it away.

Are you doing good if you take far more than you give?

What has he taken?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am no defender of dog-eat-dog capitalism, but I think the following comment is ill-conceived.

He's doing a lot of good with that wealth--a good you would destroy by taking it away.

Are you doing good if you take far more than you give?

What has Buffett "taken"? He has great paper wealth, but his life-style is rather frugal.

We can argue that, far from taking, Buffett's efforts have contributed to general prosperity. His investment in See's Candies, for example, helps ensure that Americans have good chocolates! Sure, if you treat the stock market as zero-sum (a flawed treatment) then his winnings are other people's losses, but so what? That's the nature of the game: Are you a "taker" just because you bought detergent when it was on sale?

[removed]

And note that in his case it's not zero-sum. He makes it clear that what he wants from his companies is long term profitability, he doesn't care about the short term. This frees the companies from worrying about keeping the share price up to keep the stockholders happy and makes the company more productive in the long run. Being owned by Buffet is good for a company.

Note, also, that he buys up a lot of first generation companies, another activity that is not zero sum. He allows the owners to cash out while retaining control of their company. Another plus for the economy.

I would be amazed if he doesn't create more value this way than what he spends--and the vast, vast majority of his great wealth is going to the betterment of society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am no defender of dog-eat-dog capitalism, but I think the following comment is ill-conceived.


What has Buffett "taken"? He has great paper wealth, but his life-style is rather frugal.

We can argue that, far from taking, Buffett's efforts have contributed to general prosperity. His investment in See's Candies, for example, helps ensure that Americans have good chocolates! Sure, if you treat the stock market as zero-sum (a flawed treatment) then his winnings are other people's losses, but so what? That's the nature of the game: Are you a "taker" just because you bought detergent when it was on sale?

[removed]

A growing concentration of wealth at the top end, where a small percentage of the nations or worlds population have more than the rest combined is a case of taking more than you give. It doesn't matter whether or not Buffett lives a frugal lifestyle.

Religious speaking detected.

He's distributing that vast income to the betterment of society--a far better outcome than if it were simply distributed to the people.

 

[DBT]

Are you doing good if you take far more than you give?

What has he taken?

Wealth that could have benefited both workers and consumers, higher pay and lower prices....if naked greed was not the driving force in the high end of town.

There can be no wealth without workers selling their time, skill and effort....more often than not, for too low a price. It is the workers who make it possible.

Thereby creating a two tiered society, those at the top with most of the world's wealth and power, with vast numbers of people struggling to make ends meet.

 

[DBT]

I am no defender of dog-eat-dog capitalism, but I think the following comment is ill-conceived.


What has Buffett "taken"? He has great paper wealth, but his life-style is rather frugal.

We can argue that, far from taking, Buffett's efforts have contributed to general prosperity. His investment in See's Candies, for example, helps ensure that Americans have good chocolates! Sure, if you treat the stock market as zero-sum (a flawed treatment) then his winnings are other people's losses, but so what? That's the nature of the game: Are you a "taker" just because you bought detergent when it was on sale?

[removed]

A growing concentration of wealth at the top end, where a small percentage of the nations or worlds population have more than the rest combined is a case of taking more than you give. It doesn't matter whether or not Buffett lives a frugal lifestyle.

Religious speaking detected.

He's distributing that vast income to the betterment of society--a far better outcome than if it were simply distributed to the people.

Nobody is saying 'distributed to the people' - the issue is, and always was, fair pay for work performed. Pay that reflects the market value of goods produced and services performed.

You are building Strawmen.

 

[RVonse]

I think that if people are uncomfortable with wealth, the best most fair way to address this is to tax it steeply at the owner's death.

Totally agree with this.

And if you really think this through, its the best way to ensure everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed. That is what America has always stood for and what it should be about. We do not want to make sure everyone gets to the finish line at the same time that is socialism. But we do want to make sure everyone is born with an equal opportunity to succeed.

 

[RVonse]

I often think of the grotesque wealth of these people and what should happen in the context of the game of "Settlers of Catan." That is, they _say_ they are good people (Gates, e.g. or Buffet) but they still have grotesque amounts of money. Not lots of money, but grotesque amounts that continue to grow in unfair and unfairly protected ways.

So I feel that I'd like to see them divest themselves in a way they claim they consider fair. Don't dribble out amounts to vaccines, but really dump it - spin off a huge chunk that does vast good. And have a less grotesque amount remaining. And reduce your income to below grotesque levels. Let your people who produce for you keep more of the fruits of their labor. Don't take it just because you can.

And if, after 5 years, you haven't found a way to do this, then half gets taken (or 80%, even,) until you are below a grotesque amount. Just like the Robber Baron send half your resources back to the deck if you are holding more than 7 cards in "Catan" when someone rolls a 7. There's a parallel in history to this, when the inequity becomes too egregious, the uprising causes heads to roll. So pro-tip to the grotesquely wealthy - better to not wait for heads to roll.


Anyway, just something I think about. That change can have a sort of saw-tooth pattern, and it ain't pretty getting caught in the saw. When people are fed up, they are far beyond their sense of forbearance - far beyond.

You gave two examples, Gates and Buffet. Lets look at Buffet more carefully--does he actually have large amounts of money? No. He has a controlling interest in Berkshire Hathaway. It's the ability to direct the company that counts--you take away that money, you take away that control and you kill that golden goose. Leave it alone and the vast majority goes to charity.

In your quest to destroy the rich you would take tens of billions from charity.

I would say who gives a crap whether Warren controls everything unless he is controlling something worthwhile in the first place. Warren differs greatly from Musk IMHO because the former billionaire does nothing for the human race and the later billionaire may very well prevent humanity from dying out.

 

[Swammerdami]

Wealth and income inequality, when excessive (as they have become over the past several decades) are bad — bad for society and bad for the economy. You'll get no argument there, from me nor from reputable economists. Nor even from Warren Buffett!

Despite the many examples of self-made billionaires, most wealth inequality has been perpetuated by inheritance. Paul Krugman states that he was surprised to learn this after studying Piketty's Capital but couldn't argue with the evidence. If we think that Conrad Hilton was rewarded financially for building a great hotel chain, does it follow that part of his reward should be to make his great grand-daughter Paris a party animal?

I favor measures to reduce inequality, such as progressive income tax, estate tax, and wealth tax. Settling on the best combination of measures would be a topic for another thread. Best base the thread on Piketty's famous and excellent book; we needn't reinvent every wheel. Again, Buffett supports at least some of such measures.

For the discussion here, I just ask that we "keep our eyes on the ball" and avoid misleading moralistic words. I had to stop participating in another thread when discussion focused on whether a higher-income person "deserved" his higher income. And here we read that Buffett has "taken."

What has he taken, and whom has he taken it from? Serious question: Do studies show that employees of Buffett-controled companies are less well compensated than the average?

When productive lands (or factories) are used to produce mink (or expensive sex toys) for the rich instead of chickens (or mopeds) for the masses, then we can say the rich have "taken" resources that it might have been better to share. But again, what has frugal Mr. Buffett taken? Yes, it's likely that his grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be much less frugal, but Buffett is a peculiar example if that's your point: He's giving 99% of his wealth to charity.

Religious speaking detected.

He's distributing that vast income to the betterment of society--a far better outcome than if it were simply distributed to the people.

Nobody is saying 'distributed to the people' - the issue is, and always was, fair pay for work performed. Pay that reflects the market value of goods produced and services performed.

You are building Strawmen.

Many successful American companies — Walmart and Amazon come to mind — have been built by exploiting low-end labor. I will happily retract part of my remarks if you demonstrate that See's Candies, Gillette and Coca Cola fall into this category. (Yes, I know Wells Fargo Bank may already work as an example for you.)

 

[RVonse]

Are you doing good if you take far more than you give?

What has he taken?

Not so much lately but in his earlier years he did leveraged buyouts costing generally at the expense of the workers.