85 People Have as Much Money as Half the World

The only way these 85 control so much wealth is by govt force, be that regulation that favors monopolies, war, govt handouts, favors or simply being a good little (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to the world bankers. Its not a result of capitalism, its a result of govt with too much power.

For me 85 controlling so much is a problem. Id have all employees on a simple flat tax (preferably NiT) and business on the sliding tax scale. That will ensure smaller players in the market place without the scale can compete which is good for suppliers, consumers and workers alike. And of course countries have the right to print their own currency debt free, theres no need for world banking / central bank parasites.

 

Wonderful news , i hope that next year 50 people will have all the money .

 

Capitalism is the reason government has too much power!! Capitalists use their wealth to influence government. Government then does the bidding of capitalists. Therefore government is large BECAUSE of capitalism. Not in spite of it or in opposition to it.

 

Who are the 85 people, and how did they make their money? Neither the article nor the OP gives names. My guess is the lucky 85 are heads of countries like Saudi Arabia who claim their countries oil reserves as personal property, and who don't engage in what anyone would really call a "free market" system.

 

I think the clear answer to the widening wealth gap is to reinstate a strict estate tax. It would go a long way towards neutering spoiled brat dynasties like the Waltons. It seems like something conservatives could get behind. No more handouts--you get what you earn, not what you're born into.

 

Its big because too many people want it to wipe everyone's butts. It would be easy to curb corporations influence if there were the will. Limit donation sizes and on a per vote basis for one.

Big power hungry govts dont mind monopolies, its easier to control them for even more power.

The 85 also shows how pointless and misdirected the lefts redistribute the wealth mantra is. They always aim to raise taxes on wages on as many people as possible, the truly wealthy dont generate the bulk of their wealth that way because its stupid!

 

There is no meaningful difference between trickle down and trickle up, but the "average" includes the richest household and the poorest household and does not represent the "middle class." Using median is a way a lot of people try to get around that the super rich are so rich they skew the averages upward.

 

Say you did that, and then the head of the family dies. and his hairs have to sell the controlling interest in the company, then people with less skill buy that controlling interest and then run the company into the ground. Wealth and jobs will then be destroyed. Not seeing any good from your plan!

 

The 85 should be sequestered in Davos, CH, and allowed to spend their fortunes only there. Then judge how the rest of the planet fares.

 

I'm pretty sure his "hairs" will go to the grave with him.

Kidding aside, if his heirs can't continue to run the company profitably, then why shouldn't they be forced to sell it? That's how capitalism should work, no? Never mind that this is a hypothetical situation anyway, as most businessmen know passing off complete control of your company to offspring statistically isn't the wisest decision.

 

I'm just worried about the money I have. I guess I'm old school like that.

 

Sure there is inequality of wealth in the world.

The alternative is described by Cuba, NorK, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela.

 

No group of people are bums, but systems can be bums. Your argument uses the "Congo" as a generic reference for places where the masses are starving no matter how much external aid and good will is directed at them. If we look at these "Congos" they are all lawless places in eternal transition. Lawless in the sense that the rule-of-law is subservient to the rule-of-man. They can further be segregated by the economic system they have in place. There's a myriad of reasons but I think transition says it all.

Bottom line, it isn't a free market that's causing the problems.

This is a zero sum argument and one that the facts and reality dispel. The pie is ever enlarging due to the almost logarithmic increase in productivity over the decades. Thinking in a purely capitalist sense, money doesn't care who has it or how much. The rich don't care if others have money. It's only in a fascist system or one were the political class controls production that we see the zero growth those failed systems create; that in turn fosters a system where class mobility is only available by theft. That would be the connected political class taking from everyone else at gun point.

But airlines do make a profit and they provide an amazing service at an amazing price.

I'm saying that wealth isn't removed from the market place. No one piles money in a vault. Money is put to use. Money in a bank is loaned. Money used to purchase bonds is used to build bridges. Money used to purchase stock from a company is used to expand or buy tools that make it more productive. Money has value only when it is in the market and circulating.

I agree with anti-trust laws, I don't like monopolies, I see governments role in a "free market" system as enforcing contract law, judging torts and ensuring a level playing field that promotes competition. So no, one person or one entity controlling entire segments of the economy wouldn't be ok nor would it be legal.

Now you've touched on some aspects of why there is an accumulation of wealth that seems unnatural; it's government influence and partnership either intended or not and both overt or covert and tacit and explicit. Think Mexico, Think the Congo, Think South America, Think North Korea, think drug cartel, think Prison Industrial Complex, or Military Industrial Complex, think Cozy relationship between regulator and regulated or or or or....

Thank you Pardy for the cogent civil reply.

Cheers
Labour

 

I'm thinking that Martin Bashir has dose for you. ::::: laughing:::::: One could say the same of leftist zealots, no?

I don't disagree. Where we disagree is in the solution. I and many like me argue for a limited government, thus limiting the areas and impact of the cozy relationship that government seeks and business accepts.

I've argued that it has been the creation of agencies that regulate business and industry that has invited in and cultivated this aspect of human nature. We've given these agencies (the executive) the power to both legislate through rule and regulation as well as the power to judge by administrative court. It was a path that was taken in error. Quasi Legislative power and Quasi Judicial power should be (and are in spirit) unconstitutional powers. It is a system that has not produced what it was created for. It has produced a too cozy relationship between regulator and regulated.

The solution, or other un-taken path, was to keep the rule writing in the legislature and the judging within the judiciary. Balance of power, checks and balance. We now have a system that is out of balance. Instead of enlarging the executive power and budget to fund its rule making and judging we should have enlarged the other branches. Within the Congress, federal and state, specialized committees should write the rules and regulations, specifically. The judicial should have been expanded to cover various areas of regulation; environmental courts, labour law court, health profession court, etc. etc. The executive should do nothing but investigate infractions of the law and bring charges letting the judicial judge. Separation of powers!

We don't need more regulation written and judged by the executive, we need a systemic change back to the self correcting, self limiting philosophy of separated powers.

We do agree.

Frodly, how do you see the problem corrected? I've given my solution above.

Cheers
Labour

 

via buying laws, and politicians, yes they are...

 

We've seen the effects of this tax scheme with the family farm. Farms, their land, the equipment necessary can, even for smallish enterprises, reach millions in asset value. Taxing the estate of half its value leaves zero options, the kids have to sell or borrow to pay the taxes. Now comes the "environmental" and "sustainability" ordinances intended to stop farms from being developed into subdivisions but in reality remove the option from the "hairs" of selling or dividing the farmstead to pay taxes and keep portions in the family and operating. Squeeze play, or would that be a "hair" cut?

Oddly we lament the loss of the family farm and see the effect of estate taxes here but don't with a machine shop, aviation repair station, or small sized plywood manufacturer.

Cheers
Labour

 

And once we reach income equality, who thinks that a group of 10,000 people would invest almost everything they have to build a new kind of Boeing?

You do need rich people. Maybe resent is the whole problem with the people who keep whining that the income gap is too great. Even I think it's too great, but maybe I'm wrong.

But I'll tell you this, I'd much rather live in America at my average wage than live in any country in the world who has anything very close to total income equality. I think that the less-civilized African nations are the closest to having income equality, and I'd much rather live here than there.

And maybe it's income EQUALITY that KEEPS those African nations the way they are.

 

Absolutely.

Those greedy workers are always the problem.

 

are you actually trying to say a government under capitalism has more power than a socialist or communist government ?
And by the way we are not living under a true capitalist system we are ranked 12th in economic freedom world wide
we are more socialist then countries that claim they are socialist

 

The reason for the Estate Tax scheme is to destroy wealth and stop its accumulation, and is a communist idea. Of course wealth is not money at all, but is often production (farm equipment or farm land, or actual factory equipment and land, etc.) Such wealth adds to the living standard of all, and it is that wealth that the left wishes to destroy!

 

You seem to have a very mercantile view of economics. The world isn't getting poorer each time I burn up a gallon of gas in my tank.

 

What exactly is the monopoly that the government is enforcing for Microsoft?

That's just crazy. By that argument North Korea should be a libertarian wonderland.

 

IP law creates a government granted monopoly. Which is why many on the left and among libertarians seek to eradicate it or replace it.

What in the world are you talking about? What does North Korea have to do with anything? There are multiple types of authoritarianism with widely differing agendas, motivations, and underlying philosophies. The French monarchy of the 18th century has very little in common with the USSR, which has little in common with modern Iran.

That is a completely different discussion anyways, though as a tie in, read Hannah Arendt's the Origins of Totalitarianism, in which she very effectively traces the origins of Stalinism and Fascism in "liberal" colonial endeavors (liberal in the classical sense).

The real discussion is over whether or not capitalism and limited government are compatible, a discussion where NK couldn't be less relevant.

 

Oh that's right, you are anti intellectual property rights. I'm not sure that libertarians are ready to abandon property rights for all out thievery (although I've no doubt that is a position the left is comfortable with), although certain anarcho-capitalists probably go along with that. Although it's possible that mainstream libertarianism could break down and lose it's philosophical moorings in order to justify downloading movies illegally.

So basically you have no serious argument on that front.

You were the one who said, "Therefore government is large BECAUSE of capitalism." so it's logical to look at nation states that have the least to none capitalism and see how big the government is. I have to say, it's pretty darn big in those capitalist free states.

Just curious, but are you like a freshman or sophomore in college? That seems to be the level of your arguments.

 

And you believe in the false value of money if you that is your true belief. It is the same infinite view of money that leads the MMT disciples thinking we can just print up $20T and pay off all our debt and it will be hunky-dory. Money used to represent something--gold, silver, whatever--but now, it at best represents debt and, more likely, really represents nothing but blind faith.