Top 1% controls 39% of wealth

[doodle]

Problematic trend? http://www.cnbc.com/id/100780163

[Xan]

Nope

[doodle]

Hahaha! Thanks. How uneven do you think things will have to get before you cause a revolution? My guess is that somewhere along the line and periodically throughtout human history the bottom rises up and chops the heads off the people at the top

[Reub]

The only reason that there would be a revolution just because some are doing well financially is if you have a demagogic politician looking to gain power by fomenting the divide. But this country is too smart to fall for that. Right?

[doodle]

Reub, look at history....and repeat.

[Ad Orientem]

Reub, look at history....and repeat.

Damn you were too quick for me! I will just narrow that down and suggest looking at the French and Russian Revolutions.

Let them eat cake! (No she never said that. But she could have. It was the dominant view of the upper class at the time.)

[Xan]

Wealth disparity in this country isn't anywhere in the same time zone as it was in France or Russia at the times of their revolutions.  Our poor today are far richer than virtually anybody at virtually any time in history.

I could be wrong about this, but my guess is that both of you gentlemen are in the top .1% in terms of global wealth.  Does this mean that you'll be selling everything you have and moving to the jungle in Cambodia, just to even things out?  If not, why not?

[Ad Orientem]

Wealth disparity in this country isn't anywhere in the same time zone as it was in France or Russia at the times of their revolutions.  Our poor today are far richer than virtually anybody at virtually any time in history.

I could be wrong about this, but my guess is that both of you gentlemen are in the top .1% in terms of global wealth.  Does this mean that you'll be selling everything you have and moving to the jungle in Cambodia, just to even things out?  If not, why not?

On the contrary. I am no fan of egalitarianism which is just another form of tyranny. I merely point out that there are dangers in radical disparities in privately held wealth. And I agree that we are no where near any sort of tipping point in terms of revolution. But that is a long ways from saying that we don't have a problem.

[Bean]

Good for the top 1%!

Isn't a better question about mobility to go from one wealth percentile to another?

or to question what percentage of the 1% got there through hard work, innovative ideas and company's, and what % of them are corrupt cronies, to big to jail or recipients of corporate welfare...



and for those in the former group, i also say "good for them!"

[RuralEngineer]

Hahaha! Thanks. How uneven do you think things will have to get before you cause a revolution? My guess is that somewhere along the line and periodically throughtout human history the bottom rises up and chops the heads off the people at the top

The implication being that wealth inequality is always a valid excuse for murder?

Will there be more situations where the poor rise up and murder the wealthy because of wealth inequality in the future?  Of course.  Will it be justified?  Well, that depends on how that wealth inequality came about.  If the wealthy earned it through innovation and hard work then I'd say no.

This comes down to the basic philosophical difference between us.  You want to focus on the wealth disparity, regardless of the source.  I only care about equality of opportunity, not outcome.  I also don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, since some variation will always be present.  People are inherently unequal as a circumstance of birth.

[Pointedstick]

Doodle, I think you suffer from projection.

I mean this with absolutely no disrespect, because we all have our quirks and problems, but have you considered doing some self-examination into what might be driving you to imagine that your own personal feelings and opinions are actually characteristics of other people?

You admit don't trust yourself to carry a gun... and then turn that into everyone else being too untrustworthy to carry a gun.

You admit you're a maniac behind the wheel... and generalize that to everyone else being a maniac behind the wheel.

You frequently talk about revolution with a gleeful tone and violent imagery... but in the context of other people ("the bottom") doing it.

Have you examined what might cause you to harbor such violent thoughts for those you call "the 1%"? It often seems like you feel very oppressed by rich people and corporations. I myself feel this way about government at times, but these thoughts are holding us back and sapping our freedom. The government no more oppresses me in my safe comfortable middle class life than advertising oppresses you in your ERE-style anti-consumerist life. We believe these things to avoid having to address the real issues holding us back; in my case, lack of enough money to become a homeowner in an area with very high real estate prices. What's yours?

I've found this forum to be a great resource for helping me to fight these draining feelings. We would probably be much happier helping you do the same rather than nodding in agreement that the evil nasty greedy rich people are robbing the poor and inviting bloody retribution.

[moda0306]

There are a lot of people that make money not through great ideas nor through "crony capitalism" but simply being manipulative, sly douchebags.  Some inherit it through their parents.

I would say that I agree that unequal distribution isn't as much of a problem if its for legitimate reasons or if the poor have an adequate safety net, though... Unless those with the wealth are attempting to dismantle the safety net, of course.

i don't envy or feel i have any claim over the money of those who are lucky enough to inherit.

there will always be a connection between money and power and those with manipulative, sly douche-bag tendency's will use them to increase their wealth (corporate corruption, government corruption, or corruption of the interaction between the two), to me the question of equality of opportunity is the important one, there is probably an equation of some sort that describes the rate "equality of opportunity" gets lost as the rate of manipulative douche-bagery increases.. the greater a country's corruption the less upward mobility and the more noticeable unequal distribution becomes.. but at that point the unequal distribution still isn't the real problem its merely a symptom of the underlying problem of manipulative, sly douche-bags having built an unfair unjust system for their own benefit.

[doodle]

Have you looked at the upward mobility in our country? It is extremely low....the lowest of all the OECD countries I believe. 

I dont have a problem with great wealth, but I feel that great disparity of wealth leads to nothing but social strife and corruption.

[Xan]

Is that mobility as opposed to the people who've actually moved?  Because that isn't the same thing.

Would you rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich were less well off?

[RuralEngineer]

Have you looked at the upward mobility in our country? It is extremely low....the lowest of all the OECD countries I believe. 

I dont have a problem with great wealth, but I feel that great disparity of wealth leads to nothing but social strife and corruption.

i think "social strife" is "having a problem with great wealth" and it only happens when a culture of envy and zero sum game thinking are promoted.. having a problem with corruption is more useful, accurate and more to the point..

Any why is it that we've spent metric tons of money decade after decade in the "War on Poverty" only to make essentially no progress?  One could argue that in many ways we're worse off now than we were 60 years ago.



I think you do have a problem with great wealth because it is inherently unequal.  We can't all be Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates and that appears to trouble you deeply.  Not once have I seen you post a topic on ways that we could promote innovation, entrepreneurship, or dismantle the various societal millstones we've hung around the necks of our poor that impede upward mobility (yes, I think social assistance as currently structured does more harm than good).  The alternative to these kinds of "bottom up" solutions to wealth disparity is redistribution.

If you want to propose institutionalized theft on the grounds that it's in the best interest of the wealthy, as otherwise the poor will rise up and kill them, by all means, make your case.  However, when the government wants to forcibly collect funds, they usually leave the violent imagery at home since a request for money coupled with a threat of death is usually considered extortion.

[doodle]

RuralE,

You keep converting my position into a strawman. I dont have anything against innovation or wealth. Im simply making the observation that throughout history humans dont get along well when there is a great disparity of wealth. This is a historical and anthropological observation. Like it or not we are not rational homo economicus. Think back to our tribal ancestors, no tribal society permits one person in the tribe to greatly enrich themselves above and beyond the others. My brother should know, he spent four years living with tribal peoples who essentially exist in the stone age. When someone has a lot they are expected to share and take care of others. To refuse this responsibilty is to be shunned from the tribe. This is the natural human society. What we have today is a recent aberation of human social arrangements from those that have traditionally existed for millions of years. Gumby, rails against the fact that the modern diet is so unhealthy for our body and a gross distortion of what we are designed by evolution to eat. Well, i would argue that the modern economic relations between people and our present social structure is a similar departure from what is natural and healthy for humans. We didnt evolve to live in mechanistic futuristic cities of 20 million inhabitants any more than we evolved to eat refined white flour. Can you at least acknowedlge that connection and see that maybe the present system (while creating great innovation and wealth) is not perfect and is perhaps ill suited in many ways to create the most important thing of all: happiness.

[Pointedstick]

We also didn't evolve to have the internet, or air travel, or cellular phones, or motor vehicles, or power tools, or internal medicine.

In many ways doodle, your overall attitude--whether it comes to our spiritual happiness, or our diet, or our consumptive patterns, or the global human population itself--seems to be saying that this whole civilization thing was all a mistake, and it's making us fat, lazy, greedy, and spiritually barren. It's a very Daniel Quinn-esque mode of thought.

Well, that may or may not be true, but civilization beat tribalism. Government beat anarchy. Technology beat primitivism. Agriculture beat hunting and gathering.

These are just the facts. There are parts of this state of affairs that I don't like either, but that's how the cookie of humanity has happened to crumble. We can't turn back the hands of time; all we can do it figure out how to--if we even can--minimize the damage of the negative elements of these features of humanity's journey through history.

[doodle]

We also didn't evolve to have the internet, or air travel, or cellular phones, or motor vehicles, or power tools, or internal medicine.

In many ways doodle, your overall attitude--whether it comes to our spiritual happiness, or our diet, or our consumptive patterns, or the global human population itself--seems to be saying that this whole civilization thing was all a mistake, and it's making us fat, lazy, greedy, and spiritually barren. It's a very Daniel Quinn-esque mode of thought.

Well, that may or may not be true, but civilization beat tribalism. Government beat anarchy. Technology beat primitivism. Agriculture beat hunting and gathering.

These are just the facts. There are parts of this state of affairs that I don't like either, but that's how the cookie of humanity has happened to crumble. We can't turn back the hands of time; all we can do it figure out how to--if we even can--minimize the damage of the negative elements of these features of humanity's journey through history.

Well said. I agree with everything you wrote here. The point Im trying to make is that we need to look at things over a longer time scale and analyze historical human interactions and social relations in the same way that in another thread we look at the evolutionary time scale of diet over a period of 50,000 years. Modern industrial capitalism and the type of social relations and structures that it gives rise to has existed for less than 1/100th of 1 percent of human history. Yet, people talk about it on this board like it is such a natural way for humans to relate to one another.  I think that is short sighted.

In addition, while these modern indsutrial capitalists and free marketeers claim to be the bastions of freedom, the fact is that their particular social design is constraining on what many other peoples concepts of freedom entail. The idea of parceling up the world into pieces of private property has existed for a few thousand years and it completely does away with more traditional tribal notions of freedom and concepts of mans relation to nature. Why does the concept of putting up a fence on a piece of property not considered an affront to my freedom to move as I please over this Earth? The reality is that they dont have a firm argument to stand on with regards to this. They have a concept of what freedom means to them and then try to ramrod it down everyone elses throat.

I understand the way the world works and for the most part I function extremely well in the present system. However, I am also able to see it for what it is....namely a man made construct with a set of arbitrary rules and faulty assumptions regarding human nature. We are living in particular cultural construct of the modern world, nothing more. The rules of money and social relations are particular to this system, not the human race in general.

I The idea of parceling up the world into pieces of private property has existed for a few thousand years and it completely does away with more traditional tribal notions of freedom and concepts of mans relation to nature. Why does the concept of putting up a fence on a piece of property not considered an affront to my freedom to move as I please over this Earth? The reality is that they dont have a firm argument to stand on with regards to this.

are you sure there was no tribal warfare over hunting grounds and territory? that is a version of human history i am not familiar with..

the one i have heard had the world parceled up into pieces of property just as much as ours does, there may have been more unclaimed land and notions of property and boundary's being tribal instead of personal but i suspect they have existed as long as we have...

[Pointedstick]

The thing is, doodle, as you can see, I wrestle with these issues too. In my case it's the existence of government, but I have to admit that government won and anarchy lost. It's fun to imagine a hypothetical government-less world but it's all academic since that's not the world we live in, and that's not likely to be any world anyone lives in, not for a looooong time, if it even happens at all.

If I want to have an effect on the world we do live in, it's more sensible for me to focus on ways to make the muddle of what we do have work better. That's why I may be a philosophical anarchist, but I'm a practical libertarian.

This is what Gumby does too. Industrial agriculture exists. You can't end it. So instead, he focuses his efforts on teaching people about alternative diets that result in better health and less environmental stress. He can't wish away industrial agriculture any more than I can wish away government or you can wish away consumerism or even civilization itself.

I totally get the emotions you feel when you look at industrial capitalism with disgust. I really do. It's what I feel when I look at government. But these emotions aren't helpful. They don't grant any real insight; they just constantly frustrate us since what we've convinced ourselves will make us happy is something that we know we'll never live to see.

[Mountaineer]

One also cannot wish away atheism.  If we all believed and practiced the true message of Christianity, the world would be a better place - no coveting, no murder, no worshiping man instead of God, etc., etc.  However, given that we are all sinners (via imputed sin and actual sin), whether we admit it or not, we are stuck with the world as it is and thus make only fleeting bursts doing what is right for all (e.g. loving neighbor) instead of what is right for me (idol worship where I am the idol or where something man made is the idol).  Thus, give thanks for every "great" day that we have and stop worrying about what others have, what others do and what might be.  Live for God, neighbor and in gratitude as much as possible.  That is how I maintain my sanity - caring for and using the gifts God gave us to the best of my ability and then letting the chips fall where they may and not stewing about things that do not go as I had hoped.  If I listened to the sensationalized so called news 24/7/365 I would be a raving maniac.  So, I just come to this forum for a breath of air where people are actually pretty darn thoughtful of each other - Thanks be to God for that.

[smurff]

An atheist might say, "One can't wish away Christianity."  And since they are atheists, the concept of sin (original or otherwise) does not apply to them; they are not sinners, no matter what other people believe about them.

Atheists are as kind, considerate, and thoughtful as anyone else.

[RuralEngineer]

Doodle,

You claim to just be making an observation, but it's very hard to believe that you don't have an opinion on which system is just. You seem to support a redistributive philosophy, even if your only argument is that it's "natural."  A dubious argument when laid next to any number of other human behaviors common 10,000 years ago that have mostly fallen before the sword of civilization.

[doodle]

Doodle,

You claim to just be making an observation, but it's very hard to believe that you don't have an opinion on which system is just. You seem to support a redistributive philosophy, even if your only argument is that it's "natural."  A dubious argument when laid next to any number of other human behaviors common 10,000 years ago that have mostly fallen before the sword of civilization.

RuralE,

Im just trying to insert another point of view here that is outside the box. I realize that redistribution has issues, I also realize that the present economic and social construction that we live under is just that, a construction that is based on certain cultural ideas and assumptions of how society and humans should interact and relate to one another. I believe it is important to try to remove yourself the best you can from this cultural conditioning in order to objectively view the system that we live under. I cant make an objective observation of something if I position myself as an active participant within that system. I must try to remove my biases the best I can and step back and view the present within a larger cultural context and range of human interaction and behavior that has existed for millions of years. While Adam Smith (who is probably one of the misquoted people in history) made a strong argument for the benefits of a particular social construction, his ideas dont constitute the be all end all of human evolution.

Are there many advantages to capitalism? Of course, no doubt. Marx probably had more good things to say about Capitalism than William Buckley. However, he was also smart enough to see that it, like all previous social constructions, contained internal contradictions which would ultimately either force it to adapt and change or be brought down entirely. All Marx did was apply the Hegelian dialectic so to speak to Capitalism of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Maybe his predictions of outcomes and human nature were flawed but that doesnt negate the fact that ever system is in a state of comstant flux and evolution. In Marxs day capitalism truly was a system of survival of the fittest and for those at the bottom it was a grueling and ugly life they were suddenly thrown into...hence the huge revolitionary atmosphere in Europe during that time. The last hundred years however has seen capitaism shaped into a much less all or nothing system, into something with social safety nets and regulations and protections. These changes are something that Marx didnt predict which is why his analysis hasnt panned out. Nevertheless, This present system also has internal comtradictions and will change as a result of these.

Anyways, at the end of the day Im just making the observation that there seems to be a growing disparity in wealth between the top one percent and the rest of society while at the same time there has been a general breakdown in structures of community. Historically this has never turned out to be a good thing if the trend continues for too long. You can debate whether that is right or wrong, but I dont think it will change human behavior. And by the way, Im not the top one percent but I have worked extremely hard to accumulate assets in order to gain my freedom and retire early so Im not just at the bottom of the pile just looking for a handout.

[doodle]

Another thing to think about is that underlying all of these discussions is the fundamental question of the meaning of life. If we as a culture have no idea what the purpose of life is, it is very hard to argue the merits of this or that particular system.

In the past human action in this world was anchored to a religious foundation. Systems were constructed and meaning from life was derived through spiritual attainment. In the East there was a similar spiritual path of life in which people would aspire towards liberation or nirvana or moksha or whatever you want to call it.

Today in the post modern world this spiritual bedrock has been dynamited and hence people have been left to float without anything to attach to. In response modern people grasp at all sorts of things trying to find purpose and meaning in a universe where science often tells us there is none.

I guess what im trying to express is that if we cant agree on a destination, how can we decide which road is best to drive on?

Just for interests sake, look at how some other cultures viewed lifes purpose. The Hindu ashrama system is is quite interesting I think.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama_(stage)

[Pointedstick]

Another thing to think about is that underlying all of these discussions is the fundamental question of the meaning of life. If we as a culture have no idea what the purpose of life is, it is very hard to argue the merits of this or that particular system.

In the past human action in this world was anchored to a religious foundation. Systems were constructed and meaning from life was derived through spiritual attainment. In the East there was a similar spiritual path of life in which people would aspire towards liberation or nirvana or moksha or whatever you want to call it.

Today in the post modern world this spiritual bedrock has been dynamited and hence people have been left to float without anything to attach to. In response modern people grasp at all sorts of things trying to find purpose and meaning in a universe where science often tells us there is none.

I actually agree very strongly with this premise.

Though I am a non-religious person, I envy the sense of purpose that the religious are able to attain in their lives. It seems like it can become a very strong center pivot for your entire life. And religious communities and nations appear more resistant to falling into materialism.

Unfortunately, I seem to be too rational to achieve this. Many times have I tried to awaken some kind of spirituality, but my rational mind is too strong. I used to think of it as a universal advantage I had been blessed with but more and more I see the hindrances that an overabundance of rationality and a too-finely-tuned hypocrisy meter can cause in your life.