82 Percent of the Wealth Generated Last Year 'Went to the Richest 1 Percent of the Global Population

money does have a way of finding power; or is that the other way around.

 

What are you talking about ?

 

Which Is why I would rather see a measured redistribution over time than a revolution which just throws a new bunch in power. I know this is a difficult concept for some conservatives to grasp, but there can be a whole range of options between pure capitalism and socialism or communism. We don't allow monopolies because that would be capitalism run amok. We've seen what mayhem happens with pure socialism and communism is a bust. But somewhere in between, there is a sweet spot. Finding it is the trick.

 

Globally, you are in the top percentage. How much should we force you to give up?

 

We already paid the price of not grasping and accepting the redistribution of wealth, .... with blood.

That sweet pot was back during the good old days back when America was great.
It almost looked like that eventually everyone would have gotten a piece of the pie but some wanted more change and the sweet pot was left behind.


Here's how it use to work. Immigrants came to America, there was no welfare or free stuff back before the 1960's. If you had the pioneer spirit, not afraid to break a sweat and getting dirt under your fingernails you were going to make it in America.

Those who didn't have the pioneer spirit got back on the boat and went back to their mother country.

It's estimated that 20% to 30% of all immigrants who arrived in America between 1800 to 1965 didn't have the American pioneer spirit and gave up and went back too where they came from. It's known as emigration.

No free stuff for losers, no choice but to go back home.

Percent of immigrants who gave up compared to new immigrants arriving.

 

They don't want to eat, or they want to grow their own food and skin their own muskrats for coats?

 

It depends on how the "sweet spot"is defined. I think its defined differently in different countries.

I think what you are talking about is more equality of outcomes. Equality is inversely proportional to liberty, and in the US a very high value is placed on liberty. One is free to go wherever his ability and desire takes him or her. One can end up very rich or in a very fulfilling job or in a homeless camp, or a million places in between. Its all about self determination. Maybe that's our "sweet spot".

 

Who knows? Every one is different.
My point is this, I don't have to earn the same as my boss to still want to do my job. I just have to earn enough to make it worth my time.
I don't even ask what my boss makes, it's not relevant to me. What I make is the important part.

 

It was government policies that led to the formation of the monopolies that were eventually broken up by government.

Apparently, you don't understand the different between Wealth and Income.

$194,350

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm

BLS is much more accurate.

 

That makes sense.
But the bottom line is, it is you that has to feed, clothe and shelter yourself. Nobody else is responsible, which is a common misconception these days

 

er yes the policy was non-interference.

No, i understand it perfectly. heard the term "estate taxes" before?

It includes presidents of companies, et.al.

My reference is specific to the job title CEO.

 

Regulation is interference and generally eliminates entry into a market, leaving the established companies free reign to practice monopolistic behaviors

 

I've always thought the best way to create a thriving middle class which is an indicator of a healthy economy is to have a balance of power between government, business, and workers. Right now I believe the balance has shifted too much toward government and big business as they create policies that create a surplus of labor thereby stagnating wages. They also control a monetary system that mostly hurts workers.

 

Government interference is necessary to restrict such behaviors and provide a level of consumer and labor protection. How to do that and to what extent is the subject of many a political ideology, not to mention economist's wet dreams.

 

balance is the key with at least a few checks. If its a mindset of all involved it works great, but how the hell do you get there from here?

 

Try to bring an end to neoliberalism in all its forms as quickly as possible, by making people aware of the full scale of its injustices. As in the Oxfam report above which by stimulating the public mind about the injustice of this awful doctrine will hopefully cause a reaction that will eventually cause a change.

 

Sadly, I agree.

I see ordinary people arguing to protect the financial interests of those who rip them off, treat them with utter contempt and regard them as 'deplorables". I also watch the same people fight to protect those in the media who lie to them on a daily basis.

We humans have never been a rational species, which is why politicians know how to press our buttons so effectively.

 

he never did answer

 

Yes, UK is top 6 wealthiest nations, as I recall. But your premise is irrelevant, as the problem isn't sovereign in nature but well beyond nation states and borders. We could call it a trans national ideology of greed - or rule by the wealthy for the wealthy on behalf of the wealthy. It is the acceptance by the many the 1% owning all is not their destiny and it isn't locked in stone. That can and has to change.

 

Ahh yes, communism via violent revolution and redistribution of wealth.

 

For me, in order to be free from the power of others, I seek independence.
Self sufficiency.
Growing my own food, skinning my own muskrats.
In the work place, the ability to leave my job and find another.

It's not my goal to create middle class jobs for people. Or to make middle classes thrive. If that was my goal I couldn't expect to do better than in my own country, in which the middle class is dominant to the exclusion all other classes.
I don't see monetary policy as being especially hurtful to workers. Loose monetary policy has allowed everyday workers access to capital that enriches their lives. Allows them to buy cars and houses and luxuries and to feed themselves in times of cash emergency.

I do think that those with the greater ability to do so, rig the game in their own favour. But I don't see it as working out particularly badly for everyone else as it stands round here.
I live in the land of plenty where everyone is middle class.
I don't look around me and see much in the way of hardship and poverty. I just see wealth, health and prosperity mainly.

 

Common knowledge for all but the completely brainwashed.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

 

All you have to change to do this, is the metric by which you are judging it.
It's an attitude. It comes from within.

Change your statistic and you solved the problem.

Change the criteria by which you have quantified wealth, and you have done so again.

If you seek injustice, you will find it. Because injustice is unquantifiable. It's just a perception in your mind.
So if you insist on being malcontented, you always will be. And no matter what society does to appease your discontent you will simply find a new way to justify your negative feelings. A new metric for your inequality.
This is the politics of jealousy and envy and it is not the nemesis of greed, it is greed itself.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I will not become this.


You see in this country you can go from binman to 1%er in one life time. If you so wish.
And back again too, if you so wish.
There are no guarantee's but it is possible. Achievable.

So is there a problem at all? I don't think there is.

 

9th if you are talking about the size of the national economy. 25th if talking about per capita.

 

Trans national greed? You mean species pervasive greed don't you? Political systems that requires radical changes in individual human nature to be successful, and not just a replacement of the existent power structure, are doomed to failure. The commies proved that to all the world.