Re-Framing Capitalism

[bilby]

Capitalism is only a couple of hundred years old. If the framing has rotted out to the point where it needs reframing already, then perhaps it would be easier and cheaper to just tear it down and start over.

 

[DBT]

Probably right. If an agreement on what measures to take can be achieved.....

 

[Harry Bosch]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

That rather depends on how they came by it.

There's a spectrum of 'fair' involved; A person who outright stole their wealth doesn't get to keep it; If they got it by means of the labour of slaves then they possibly do get to keep it, but that's not generally regarded as very fair; If they defrauded people to get it, then there's a whole range from "told granny her driveway needed resurfacing and absconded with her deposit money" through "Insider trading" to "promised to build a wall on the border to win votes to obtain a job, but then got the job, but didn't build a wall" and on to "the large print giveth, but the small print taketh away" contracts; If they got it from ancestors who stole it then generally it remains theirs; If you earned it through hard work, you get to keep a fraction of it, with the remainder taken by the government in exchange for the provision of infrastructure that you needed in order to work in the first place...

It's far more complicated than "You get to keep what you have, because taking it from you ain't fair".

A major complication is that while many things are property, money isn't - but everyone behaves as though it is.

Well, I was speaking in general terms; to match DBT's speaking in general terms. I don't disagree with what you say above.

Your 'general terms' remark was skewed in favour of the upper echelons of society. My remark was related to reframing capitalism in ways that enable a fairer more equitable economic system and society to emerge.

Well, that sounds pretty cool to me. I'm all for more fair! What do you have in mind?

 

[DBT]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

That rather depends on how they came by it.

There's a spectrum of 'fair' involved; A person who outright stole their wealth doesn't get to keep it; If they got it by means of the labour of slaves then they possibly do get to keep it, but that's not generally regarded as very fair; If they defrauded people to get it, then there's a whole range from "told granny her driveway needed resurfacing and absconded with her deposit money" through "Insider trading" to "promised to build a wall on the border to win votes to obtain a job, but then got the job, but didn't build a wall" and on to "the large print giveth, but the small print taketh away" contracts; If they got it from ancestors who stole it then generally it remains theirs; If you earned it through hard work, you get to keep a fraction of it, with the remainder taken by the government in exchange for the provision of infrastructure that you needed in order to work in the first place...

It's far more complicated than "You get to keep what you have, because taking it from you ain't fair".

A major complication is that while many things are property, money isn't - but everyone behaves as though it is.

Well, I was speaking in general terms; to match DBT's speaking in general terms. I don't disagree with what you say above.

Your 'general terms' remark was skewed in favour of the upper echelons of society. My remark was related to reframing capitalism in ways that enable a fairer more equitable economic system and society to emerge.

Well, that sounds pretty cool to me. I'm all for more fair! What do you have in mind?

It's not that hard, basic models already exist...just look to Scandinavia, Denmark, Finland...the happiest people on Earth.

Executive salaries kept to fairly reasonable levels, a blend of capitalism and socialism, with the motto 'no one left behind.'

 

[bilby]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

That rather depends on how they came by it.

There's a spectrum of 'fair' involved; A person who outright stole their wealth doesn't get to keep it; If they got it by means of the labour of slaves then they possibly do get to keep it, but that's not generally regarded as very fair; If they defrauded people to get it, then there's a whole range from "told granny her driveway needed resurfacing and absconded with her deposit money" through "Insider trading" to "promised to build a wall on the border to win votes to obtain a job, but then got the job, but didn't build a wall" and on to "the large print giveth, but the small print taketh away" contracts; If they got it from ancestors who stole it then generally it remains theirs; If you earned it through hard work, you get to keep a fraction of it, with the remainder taken by the government in exchange for the provision of infrastructure that you needed in order to work in the first place...

It's far more complicated than "You get to keep what you have, because taking it from you ain't fair".

A major complication is that while many things are property, money isn't - but everyone behaves as though it is.

Well, I was speaking in general terms; to match DBT's speaking in general terms. I don't disagree with what you say above.

The more I think about this, the more I think that fairness is the critical difference; But it's not fairness to the individual in terms of allowing him to keep his wealth, it's fairness in terms of having every individual playing by the same rules.

That is, there's nothing wrong with the government saying "You earned X dollars, so you must pay Y dollars in taxes", but there's something very wrong about them saying "You earned X dollars, and must pay Y dollars in taxes, but your neighbour who also earned X dollars must pay Z dollars in taxes, because his politics (or race, ethnicity, family connections, etc.) differs from yours".

It's not private ownership of property or wealth per se that matters, so much as the impartial enforcement of the same set of rules.

To use a sports analogy, a match where the referees are very strict can be enjoyable to players and spectators; And so can a match where the referees are very lax. But if the referees are strict with one team, and lax with the other, it's no fun for anyone - not even, in many ways, the team that is handed an unearned victory.

 

[Swammerdami]

It's hard to discuss these things when the very nature of ownership in human society is not understood.

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

Nobody's trying to confiscate that cabin you built yourself where you raise your family. But to compare that cabin with the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Walmart stock owned by the Walton family shows misunderstanding of the very purpose of human society, and the covenants which have kept society working for thousands of years.

Why do inventors and writers get to own their creations? It's just NOT as simple as "What I own belongs to me." The correct answer is found in the U.S. Constitution

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[;]

See? Inventors are allowed to own their creations NOT for their own benefit, but for society's benefit ... "to promote progress".

This is not an isolated example. Here is a charter allowing one of the first English corporations 422 years ago. She did this for England's benefit, not just to help her loving cousin George.

ELIZABETH, by the Grace of God, Queen of England [etc.] To all ... People ... greeting.
Whereas our most dear and loving Cousin, George, Earl of Cumberland, and our well-beloved Subjects, Sir John Hart, of London, Knight [and other members of the East India Company] ... [intend] ... for the Honour of this our Realm of England, as for the Increase of our Navigation, and Advancement of Trade of Merchandize [to] adventure and set forth one or more Voyages [etc.] KNOW YE THEREFORE, that we, greatly tendering the Honour of our Nation, the Wealth of our People, and the Encouragement of them, and others of our loving Subjects in their good Enterprizes, for the Increase of our Navigation, and the Advancement of lawful Traffick, to the Benefit of our Common Wealth, have of our especial Grace, certain Knowledge, and mere Motion, given and granted, and by these Presents, for us, our Heirs and Successors, do give and grant unto our said loving Subjects [the right to incorporate, and to operate in East India]

Ownership WITHOUT the active assistance of government exists only via violence or threat of violence. That government controls the right to ownership has been obvious fact ever since a caveman told his son "Oog, you share that banana with your sister now."

It's hard to discuss these things when the very nature of ownership in human society is not understood.

 

[rousseau]

The issue I see with the equity argument is that the past few centuries have seen unprecedented population growth and improvement in quality of life for the poor. If you re-frame this, what we're looking at is a more meritocratic world with a by-product of rich people.

Yes equity is worth discussing and a valuable goal, but IMO the real problem with our current economies is long term sustainability. Human nature will always work tirelessly to make things more equitable, but it almost never thinks about the future or unintended consequences / impact.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

That rather depends on how they came by it.

There's a spectrum of 'fair' involved; A person who outright stole their wealth doesn't get to keep it; If they got it by means of the labour of slaves then they possibly do get to keep it, but that's not generally regarded as very fair; If they defrauded people to get it, then there's a whole range from "told granny her driveway needed resurfacing and absconded with her deposit money" through "Insider trading" to "promised to build a wall on the border to win votes to obtain a job, but then got the job, but didn't build a wall" and on to "the large print giveth, but the small print taketh away" contracts; If they got it from ancestors who stole it then generally it remains theirs; If you earned it through hard work, you get to keep a fraction of it, with the remainder taken by the government in exchange for the provision of infrastructure that you needed in order to work in the first place...

It's far more complicated than "You get to keep what you have, because taking it from you ain't fair".

A major complication is that while many things are property, money isn't - but everyone behaves as though it is.

Well, I was speaking in general terms; to match DBT's speaking in general terms. I don't disagree with what you say above.

Your 'general terms' remark was skewed in favour of the upper echelons of society. My remark was related to reframing capitalism in ways that enable a fairer more equitable economic system and society to emerge.

Well, that sounds pretty cool to me. I'm all for more fair! What do you have in mind?

It's not that hard, basic models already exist...just look to Scandinavia, Denmark, Finland...the happiest people on Earth.

Executive salaries kept to fairly reasonable levels, a blend of capitalism and socialism, with the motto 'no one left behind.'

I don't have any problem with that. Finland and Denmark are very capitalistic. The primary difference between them and the US is that they favor a much larger safety net than the US. I actually agree. America is a very right wing country. Very shortly women won't even have the right to control their bodies. I fully assume that gay marriage will be overturned. Right to birth control could be in trouble. And yea, Americans hate paying taxes. That's how we are. I wish it were different. I vote differently. But I'm mostly in the minority. But that the things about a capitalist country: the people have the right to decide how large their safety net should be. And for whatever reason, the US has always constantly voted for smaller.

 

[rousseau]

It's hard to discuss these things when the very nature of ownership in human society is not understood.

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

Nobody's trying to confiscate that cabin you built yourself where you raise your family. But to compare that cabin with the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Walmart stock owned by the Walton family shows misunderstanding of the very purpose of human society, and the covenants which have kept society working for thousands of years.

Why do inventors and writers get to own their creations? It's just NOT as simple as "What I own belongs to me." The correct answer is found in the U.S. Constitution

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[;]

See? Inventors are allowed to own their creations NOT for their own benefit, but for society's benefit ... "to promote progress".

This is not an isolated example. Here is a charter allowing one of the first English corporations 422 years ago. She did this for England's benefit, not just to help her loving cousin George.

ELIZABETH, by the Grace of God, Queen of England [etc.] To all ... People ... greeting.
Whereas our most dear and loving Cousin, George, Earl of Cumberland, and our well-beloved Subjects, Sir John Hart, of London, Knight [and other members of the East India Company] ... [intend] ... for the Honour of this our Realm of England, as for the Increase of our Navigation, and Advancement of Trade of Merchandize [to] adventure and set forth one or more Voyages [etc.] KNOW YE THEREFORE, that we, greatly tendering the Honour of our Nation, the Wealth of our People, and the Encouragement of them, and others of our loving Subjects in their good Enterprizes, for the Increase of our Navigation, and the Advancement of lawful Traffick, to the Benefit of our Common Wealth, have of our especial Grace, certain Knowledge, and mere Motion, given and granted, and by these Presents, for us, our Heirs and Successors, do give and grant unto our said loving Subjects [the right to incorporate, and to operate in East India]

Ownership WITHOUT the active assistance of government exists only via violence or threat of violence. That government controls the right to ownership has been obvious fact ever since a caveman told his son "Oog, you share that banana with your sister now."

It's hard to discuss these things when the very nature of ownership in human society is not understood.

Government enforced ownership raises a bit of an ethical dilemma doesn't it? I have no problem at all calling extreme wealth a problem, but who decides how much is 'too much' when the wealth is gained by legal channels? And if it doesn't belong to the holder, who does it belong to?

I'm not suggesting a stance on these questions, but that seems to be where the problem lies. When you dig into it it's a pretty deep wormhole.

 

[DBT]

Cost of living is a metric. A "living wage," not a bare minimum wage.

"In 1907 the President of the new Conciliation and Arbitration Court, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, brought in the idea of a basic or minimum wage. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins decided that working men should be paid a wage that would allow them to support a family of five. Justice Higgins’ ruling, known as the Harvester Judgement, became the basis for setting Australia’s minimum wage standard for the next 70 years."

‘Harvester Judgement’ establishes a living wage | Australia’s Defining Moments Digital Classroom | National Museum of Australia

In 1907 the President of the new Conciliation and Arbitration Court, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, brought in the idea of a basic or minimum wage. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins decided that working men should be paid a wage that would allow them to support...

digital-classroom.nma.gov.au

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cost of living is a metric. A "living wage," not a bare minimum wage.

"In 1907 the President of the new Conciliation and Arbitration Court, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, brought in the idea of a basic or minimum wage. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins decided that working men should be paid a wage that would allow them to support a family of five. Justice Higgins’ ruling, known as the Harvester Judgement, became the basis for setting Australia’s minimum wage standard for the next 70 years."

‘Harvester Judgement’ establishes a living wage | Australia’s Defining Moments Digital Classroom | National Museum of Australia

In 1907 the President of the new Conciliation and Arbitration Court, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, brought in the idea of a basic or minimum wage. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins decided that working men should be paid a wage that would allow them to support...

digital-classroom.nma.gov.au

At least he's defining the family size, but that still doesn't say to what standard of living.

 

[Swammerdami]

Government enforced ownership raises a bit of an ethical dilemma doesn't it? I have no problem at all calling extreme wealth a problem, but who decides how much is 'too much' when the wealth is gained by legal channels? And if it doesn't belong to the holder, who does it belong to?

I'm not suggesting a stance on these questions, but that seems to be where the problem lies. When you dig into it it's a pretty deep wormhole.

Oh no. I hope you are not joining Mr. Bomb in drawing wrong inferences from the rhetorical question in the "click-bait" title. High billionaire wealth is a SYMPTOM of high income inequality, NOT the cause.

I'm not sure what you mean by "government-enforced ownership." A main role of government is to HELP the rich with police, judges and prisons so that the mob can't rush in and seize the rich's property.

And I was definitely NOT proposing that a line be drawn beyond which all wealth would be confiscated. The way forward to reduce (not eliminate) income inequality is by

• Making tax codes more progressive. People earning $10 million annually should pay at least a slightly higher tax rate than those making do with just $1 million annually. Corporations should pay higher tax. (In the global economy, taxes need to be "in sync" across countries, but the U.S. is dragging its feet.)
• Repealing laws which discourage labor unions.
• Improving public schools. It is a shame that the property tax revenue from rich neighborhoods is spent educating rich kids, while the poor kids who need a good education the most must make do with the property tax raised from their poor neighborhood. Those tax funds should be pooled city-wide, state-wide or even nation-wide.
• I'm not a big fan of minimum wage laws, but that is one popular approach to reducing income inequality.
• Free health-care; free or heavily subsidized child-care; affordable colleges; policies (e.g. rezoning or subsidies) that would make housing affordable.
• Measures like a financial transaction tax which would steer resources to sectors which grow the real economy.
• Better prosecution of "white collar" crime. The wealth grifted illicitly by rich criminals is much MUCH greater than total losses from auto thefts and burglaries, yet gets a slap-on-the-wrist or isn't prosecuted at all.
• Et cetera.

It is a right-wing fantasy to think that progressives want to drag down billionaires rather than improving the lot of the under-privileged. (Some play into the right-wing liars' hands by directing anger at the super-rich. I'm sorry if my OP contributed to that. As I've stated I just thought it fun and interesting to look at some of the names on the list.)

ETA: Some will think me disingenuous to distance myself from thread title. But if I were complaining about shingles and hoping for advice on anti-viral drugs, I might use a "click-bait" title like "Do I have enough lesions yet?"

PLEASE, PLEASE: Respond to INDICATIVE statements. Do NOT draw inferences from rhetorical questions.

Ooops. I conflated this thread with another on a related topic.

 

[DBT]

Cost of living is a metric. A "living wage," not a bare minimum wage.

"In 1907 the President of the new Conciliation and Arbitration Court, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, brought in the idea of a basic or minimum wage. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins decided that working men should be paid a wage that would allow them to support a family of five. Justice Higgins’ ruling, known as the Harvester Judgement, became the basis for setting Australia’s minimum wage standard for the next 70 years."

‘Harvester Judgement’ establishes a living wage | Australia’s Defining Moments Digital Classroom | National Museum of Australia

In 1907 the President of the new Conciliation and Arbitration Court, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, brought in the idea of a basic or minimum wage. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins decided that working men should be paid a wage that would allow them to support...

digital-classroom.nma.gov.au

At least he's defining the family size, but that still doesn't say to what standard of living.

Consumer price index: average house price, food items, clothing, transport, etc.

 

[Hermit]

Cost of living is a metric. A "living wage," not a bare minimum wage.

"In 1907 the President of the new Conciliation and Arbitration Court, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, brought in the idea of a basic or minimum wage. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins decided that working men should be paid a wage that would allow them to support a family of five. Justice Higgins’ ruling, known as the Harvester Judgement, became the basis for setting Australia’s minimum wage standard for the next 70 years."

‘Harvester Judgement’ establishes a living wage | Australia’s Defining Moments Digital Classroom | National Museum of Australia

In 1907 the President of the new Conciliation and Arbitration Court, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, brought in the idea of a basic or minimum wage. Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins decided that working men should be paid a wage that would allow them to support...

digital-classroom.nma.gov.au

At least he's defining the family size, but that still doesn't say to what standard of living.

From the link:

The court looked at 11 workers’ households to work out the ‘cost of living’ for an average working family. This included the cost of clothes, boots, furniture, insurance, union membership, lighting, sickness, books, newspapers, alcohol and tobacco. Higgins decided that wages had to be enough for a worker to meet the basic needs of a family of five.

So, no smartphones, trips with SpaceX or Tesla Ss. TVs were probably off the menu as well.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's hard to discuss these things when the very nature of ownership in human society is not understood.

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

Nobody's trying to confiscate that cabin you built yourself where you raise your family. But to compare that cabin with the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Walmart stock owned by the Walton family shows misunderstanding of the very purpose of human society, and the covenants which have kept society working for thousands of years.

Why do inventors and writers get to own their creations? It's just NOT as simple as "What I own belongs to me." The correct answer is found in the U.S. Constitution

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[;]

See? Inventors are allowed to own their creations NOT for their own benefit, but for society's benefit ... "to promote progress".

This is not an isolated example. Here is a charter allowing one of the first English corporations 422 years ago. She did this for England's benefit, not just to help her loving cousin George.

ELIZABETH, by the Grace of God, Queen of England [etc.] To all ... People ... greeting.
Whereas our most dear and loving Cousin, George, Earl of Cumberland, and our well-beloved Subjects, Sir John Hart, of London, Knight [and other members of the East India Company] ... [intend] ... for the Honour of this our Realm of England, as for the Increase of our Navigation, and Advancement of Trade of Merchandize [to] adventure and set forth one or more Voyages [etc.] KNOW YE THEREFORE, that we, greatly tendering the Honour of our Nation, the Wealth of our People, and the Encouragement of them, and others of our loving Subjects in their good Enterprizes, for the Increase of our Navigation, and the Advancement of lawful Traffick, to the Benefit of our Common Wealth, have of our especial Grace, certain Knowledge, and mere Motion, given and granted, and by these Presents, for us, our Heirs and Successors, do give and grant unto our said loving Subjects [the right to incorporate, and to operate in East India]

Ownership WITHOUT the active assistance of government exists only via violence or threat of violence. That government controls the right to ownership has been obvious fact ever since a caveman told his son "Oog, you share that banana with your sister now."

It's hard to discuss these things when the very nature of ownership in human society is not understood.

Government enforced ownership raises a bit of an ethical dilemma doesn't it? I have no problem at all calling extreme wealth a problem, but who decides how much is 'too much' when the wealth is gained by legal channels? And if it doesn't belong to the holder, who does it belong to?

I'm not suggesting a stance on these questions, but that seems to be where the problem lies. When you dig into it it's a pretty deep wormhole.

Yea, I struggle with how am I hurt if someone has more stock than I. I only invest in index funds. I don't think that it's a great idea for the vast majority of investors to own direct stock anyway. Individual company stocks go up and down dramatically, far more volatile that mutual funds. My ownership in mutual funds means that I own some part of Twitter. Elon owns more. Okay. I don't see the crisis. I don't even use Twitter. People get excited about paper wealth.

 

[DBT]

If it was only 'paper wealth,' nobody would bother....

 

[Harry Bosch]

If it was only 'paper wealth,' nobody would bother....

Except that the paper belongs to someone else. The wealth in your house for example is only “paper”. Is based on an appraisal based on subjective educatated best guesses. But homes go up and down in value every day. Would you be happy if someone wanted to take the paper wealth in your house because you are in the upper 1 percent?

 

[Swammerdami]

It's hard to discuss these things when the very nature of ownership in human society is not understood.

Our system of business appears to be weighed in favour of the super rich. A fairer distribution of wealth being something that government seem to be reluctant to address.

Well, in the current system in the west, a person's wealth belongs to the person who owns that wealth. To take someone's wealth; and give it to someone who doesn't own it doesn't seem fair. Russia is doing a lot of this in Ukraine.

Nobody's trying to confiscate that cabin you built yourself where you raise your family. But to compare that cabin with the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Walmart stock owned by the Walton family shows misunderstanding of the very purpose of human society, and the covenants which have kept society working for thousands of years.

Why do inventors and writers get to own their creations? It's just NOT as simple as "What I own belongs to me." The correct answer is found in the U.S. Constitution

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[;]

See? Inventors are allowed to own their creations NOT for their own benefit, but for society's benefit ... "to promote progress".

This is not an isolated example. . . .

Ownership WITHOUT the active assistance of government exists only via violence or threat of violence. That government controls the right to ownership has been obvious fact ever since a caveman told his son "Oog, you share that banana with your sister now."

It's hard to discuss these things when the very nature of ownership in human society is not understood.

Government enforced ownership raises a bit of an ethical dilemma doesn't it? I have no problem at all calling extreme wealth a problem, but who decides how much is 'too much' when the wealth is gained by legal channels? And if it doesn't belong to the holder, who does it belong to?

I'm not suggesting a stance on these questions, but that seems to be where the problem lies. When you dig into it it's a pretty deep wormhole.

Yea, I struggle with how am I hurt if someone has more stock than I. I only invest in index funds. I don't think that it's a great idea for the vast majority of investors to own direct stock anyway. Individual company stocks go up and down dramatically, far more volatile that mutual funds. My ownership in mutual funds means that I own some part of Twitter. Elon owns more. Okay. I don't see the crisis. I don't even use Twitter. People get excited about paper wealth.

Suppose 0.5% of corporate profits were somehow diverted to help American children living in poverty. Suppose, that is, that instead of corporate profits totaling $10 trillion annually, that was taxed down to $9.95 trillion, and the extra $50 billion was spent improving the lot of America's 11 million children living in poverty, $4500 each. That would be enough to buy the uninsured children the medicines they need, better recreation venues, books, less crowding in their schools, with enough left over to help pay for childcare and make it easier for their parent to work.

Would that make America, on the whole, a better place? Yes, the value of your index-fund shares would decline from $200k to $199k perhaps, and you have no children who would benefit directly, but think altruistically, or patriotically if you will.

I admit that I find your response confused and confusing, but before we address that please answer the above question, to see if there's any commonality in our perspectives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Suppose 0.5% of corporate profits were somehow diverted to help American children living in poverty. Suppose, that is, that instead of corporate profits totaling $10 trillion annually, that was taxed down to $9.95 trillion, and the extra $50 billion was spent improving the lot of America's 11 million children living in poverty, $4500 each. That would be enough to buy the uninsured children the medicines they need, better recreation venues, books, less crowding in their schools, with enough left over to help pay for childcare and make it easier for their parent to work.

Would that make America, on the whole, a better place? Yes, the value of your index-fund shares would decline from $200k to $199k perhaps, and you have no children who would benefit directly, but think altruistically, or patriotically if you will.

I admit that I find your response confused and confusing, but before we address that please answer the above question, to see if there's any commonality in our perspectives.

Fundamentally this comes down to the usual leftist dream that there's always enough money to tax for what they want.

 

[DBT]

If it was only 'paper wealth,' nobody would bother....

Except that the paper belongs to someone else. The wealth in your house for example is only “paper”. Is based on an appraisal based on subjective educatated best guesses. But homes go up and down in value every day. Would you be happy if someone wanted to take the paper wealth in your house because you are in the upper 1 percent?

Nobody has suggested devaluing the family home. The issue is correcting the huge disparity in power, wealth and income at the top and the rest of us. Which would be a good thing for the economy, larger disposable incomes for low income workers, investement, superannuation funds, financial security....