Debunking Narratives on "Wealth Inequality"

What do you think money is? It's a measuring tool, like a ruler, that we use to estimate value. It's a token, like a place holder. In order to have excess money, you have to produce value that other people are willing to exchange for money. People who have lots of money, trade lots of value.

In order to figure out why those top 10 percent own so much of the market, you have to understand the value they produce for the market. If you don't understand it, and you can't produce it, you shouldn't be involved in it.

 

So your argument boils down to wealth is infinite (which is incorrect — there are hard caps on monetary policy) and that redistribution would just shift gains (brick in your example) from people that are utilizing it effectively to people that would not utilize it effectively — I also disagree with your second point as the people with new capital would likely immediately spend it, putting it into circulation — since this argument is based on that rationale would you agree that funds not being utilized (sitting in offshore accounts for instance) would benefit America more if they were reintroduced into the economy or at minimum taxed heavily?

 

Just for the heck of it, I wanted to see for myself, so $1 dollar in 1919 money would be worth $148 bucks today correct?




In other words, $100 in 1919 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1,487.55 in 2019, a difference of $1,387.55 over 100 years. The 1919 inflation rate was 14.57%. The current inflation rate (2018 to 2019) is now 1.76% 1. If this number holds, $100 today will be equivalent in buying power to $101.76 next year.

https://www.in2013dollars.com › 19...
1919 dollars in 2019 | Inflation Calculator

 

Speaking from personal experience I will say if the average family doesn't have 5% of their take home pay to invest in the Market then they are living beyond their means.

 

Obviously we both agree that it can't be done.

Value is subjective. It's subject to supply and demand, but no person is a statistical person. You can't force an objective standard of value based on a statistical person's subjective standard of value. Some people value ice cream. Some people are lactose intolerant. Some people pay lots for baseball cards. Some people throw baseball cards away. Even the value of a dollar from one person to the next is different. There's no other way to determine value than by the observation of millions of transactions. Value can't be commanded by elites with the well intended desire to redistribute it.

Wealth inequality is a misapplication of a statistical fallacy. Bezos' billions has very little to do with your ability to produce value. I'm sure that I could hand you half of Bezo's wealth and I'd be willing to bet the other half that you'd be broke in 5 years. You are statically unlikely to be able to produce value at the level that Bezos produces value. If you could, you'd already be doing it. Bezos didn't start with billions. He had to create value to produce those billions.

 

False. My argument is that value is infinite. This is because demand is infinite. What limits your demand is scarcity. You can however, have plenty of value for things that don't exist. Like viable universal health care for example.

You don't spend capital. You use it. Capital is an asset that you use to produce value. It's the buildings and land that house Amazon's merchandise. It's the robotic systems that manage item sorting. It's the databases that you search to find what you're looking for. You can't break Amazon's database into a billion pieces, hand them to a million people, and have them turn those pieces into new value.

This is the dragon horde fallacy. There isn't a Scrooge McDuck money pile just sitting around not being used by anyone. Even that offshore money is being used to produce value by someone. You can't just take it without consequence.

 

Thanks! You caught me well and good. I totally forgot an EXTREMELY important form of wealth in crafting my definition, private business assets, which unlike public companies, are not matters of public record, and the above iteration of the propaganda narrative reminded me to include it!

Did you know that only .0X% of all companies in the U.S. are listed on stock exchanges?
That's right, there are ~30 MILLION business entities in the U.S. Only a few thousand of them are included in self-serving gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex propaganda narratives on "wealth inequality." They completely exclude all the value of nail salons, medical practices, plumbing contractors, convenience stores, etc., etc. WOW.

Can you believe they totally OMIT the assets of 29.9X MILLION privately owned businesses from their self-serving, concocted definition of "wealth" and only include the tiny fraction of public companies? Why would they do such a thing? I know, do you? I realize that publicly listed companies have far more assets per capita than private companies, BUT STILL!

Did they fool you?

So let's recraft our definition of "wealth" to include a) crucially important intangible QOL factors applicable to one's own life, family, friends and communities, things like increased LIFE EXPECTANCY, and all the other things already listed; b) personal property including all the -stuff- you own and proliferated innovations like flush toilets, cellphones, the internet, that did indeed make someone rich because YOU bought them voluntarily instead of holding cash; c) residential real estate/space owned, rented or controlled; d) small business assets spread across ~30 million small businesses; e) financial assets, cash, bank deposits, 401ks, stock/bond holdings.

 

It's addressed on every... single... page... and in every... single... graph. In far more concrete and useful terms than Complex propaganda-resentment narratives. For the Complex, Lord help them if things are actually much better than they portray to get us to worry, buy, consume, hate, become depressed, addictive, suffer excessive taxes, excessive regulation, and cede more and more power to government, and -that's- why they ignore the relatively rosy facts of what voluntary commerce has done for us all in terms of "wealth" in a relative smidgen of human-historical time. The truth is very bad for Complex business, growth and unjust enrichment.

When the parasitic Complex wins with its ill-framed propaganda and lie narratives, the rest of us lose.

Otherwise completely nonresponsive. Where's the "floundering" emoji when you need it?

 

Oh, redistribution is -extremely- viable... for the purpose of bloating their govjob pay and obscene pensions, for the purpose of feeding the grafty gov contract industry that enriches crooks like the Feinsteins and Pelosis, for creating a massive, equally corrupt grant culture, that in many respects is just as crooked as "speaking fees" and "book deals."

Redistribution works -especially- well for the MSM branch of the Complex and its large corporate crony advertisers, that allows talk show hosts to make $70+ million a year hawking mostly junk to stupid redistribution beneficiaries.

And then there are the myriad Complex vote buying schemes that victimize people into permanently dependent, sick dregs of society via redistribution. The bottom two income quintiles vote generally and overwhelmingly for free stuff, and that's by design, that they REMAIN dependent and immobile is ALSO by design. If the Complex can't breed enough, or Heaven help us some start to escape the PLANTATION, the Complex will ceaselessly try to IMPORT more, even at the expense of the safety and welfare of preexisting legitimate citizens.

But as far as "viable" in terms of sustainable and moral? correct, it's not even close to being viable. The gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex is not in the least concerned with viable governance, only with its own growth, power and enrichment. Like the Communists, if some "eggs" need to be broken in pursuit of those ends? Well the ends justify the means. Difference is, the Communists were sincere at their core, the Complex is not even remotely sincere.

 

You are talking about societal gains and national advancement while claiming you are talking about the diverging wealth divide by trying to redefine “wealth”.

 

I have presented a definition of wealth that I feel is reasonable and accurate. You have not addressed it in good faith. But thanks again for the bump!

Here it is again:

"Wealth" is: a) numerous, intangible QOL factors such as increased lifespan, that affect oneself, family, friends and community; b) personal property; c) residential property/space and control over it; d) private business assets; e) financial assets such as bank deposits, 401ks, stocks/bonds.

So your taking issue, yet not specifically taking issue, is getting -tiresome-. Do you have anything RESPONSIVE to say about this relatively simple topic or do you not?

To be -crystal- clear, excluding a-d and including only e in the definition of "wealth" is a lie narrative specifically crafted by gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex propagandists to deceive, foment unnecessary division and resentment in the citizenry, and most of all to enrich the Complex and grow its power.

 

The biggest mistake to make is to blame capitalism for the current imbalance of wealth worldwide, it is corruption we need to curb not entrepreneurial spirit and talent.

We've seen the biggest transfer of public funds to private funds ever in our history during the last 30 years, this occurred due to the big push (by Soros) to democratise countries. Those democracies were hijacked by the rich corrupt and powerful, public funds were drained and ended up contributing to the wealth gap. Even in countries already democratic we've seen public funds deteriorate...but liberals just keep pushing for socialist policies.

To fix this we need to stamp out corruption, governments will also need to stop selling off State owned enterprises... or if already too late, start creating jobs by protecting "some" markets within their country that can help employ people. They need to stop selling out education to outsiders and start investing in their own people. They need to stop using economic tools that makes living expenses and housing more expensive...further draining the average person and enriching the wealthy....And they absolutely need to guard against socialism and communism, because that is what the globalists want, they create inequality so we can embrace communism.

 

OK, so proceeding with the other half of the debunking of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex propaganda narratives on wealth inequality, we will construct a thought experiment. We will accept all the propaganda charts and graphs as fact. Then doing so, we will argue that even if all their fake charts and graphs were accurate:

a) wealth inequality in a world-historical tech boom is a very -good- thing, and
b) wealth inequality is only bad if wealth is hoarded out of an economy somehow.

Arguendo then

a) Wealth inequality in a world-historical tech boom accompanied by a world population boom (which can and SHOULD make innovators stinking rich) is a very -good- thing in a system of voluntary exchange. The value and positive equity affecting SOCIETY, of each individual's extra year of lifespan (or cellphone, etc.) in an innovation boom (as well-documented by the government statistics in the CATO white paper) greatly exceeds any negative equity inherent in the outsized bank balance of the innovator(s) that allowed everyone to live one more year. Therefore the mechanism of innovation, specifically the wise practice of leaving as much equity in the hands of those who have a documented track record of innovation, should be preserved wherever possible. Don't buy this? Get ready to give back an extra year of life and have a few thousand dollars instead. I won't make that trade, would love to see some of the LW brain trust here attempt to rationalize it.

The government, mostly administrative, provides very limited useful innovation other than as a result of war. Regardless, whatever small innovative benefit created by government/Complex is dwarfed by private sector contributions as a matter of irrefutable historical fact.

I believe that (more money in proven innovators hands) + (time) = more innovation. (More money strained through the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex sieve) = LESS innovation over time.

b) Despite the assumptions and fabrications of Complex propaganda narratives on wealth inequality, money that is not hidden in a mattress, buried in mason jars or used to light $100 cigars can NEVER be hoarded "out of the economy" by "the very rich." It is ALWAYS in use to ALL our benefit , and due to the multiplier of fractional reserve banking, brings far more oomph than direct, redistributive, bread and circus, Keynesian bastardized direct consumption vote-buying stimulus.

So -even if- their wealth inequality graphs and charts weren't the pack of lies they are, they are STILL wrong because of the best practices of a) leaving money in the hands of proven innovators to innovate more with it, and b) money is always at use in the economy and through the financial system, being put to far better use than direct stimulus.

Of course the Complex doesn't get to wet its filthy, corrupt beak as much, but who gives a F about those leeches any more? They have shown their greedster hand well and good.

 

If you analyze any large system you will find that inequality is a necessary feature. Equalibrium (entropy) is the death of the system.

What's great about value is that unlike energy it can be created and destroyed. The problem is that people are looking at only one half of the economic transaction. For all the billions of dollars that Bezos is worth there is an equal value of goods and services that people traded those dollars for distributed though society.

People just ignore qualities that are difficult and or impossible to measure. What's the full value of a 4 dollar pair of socks delivered to your father on Father's day that you ordered from your couch the night before from your mobile phone? Is it equal to the value of a hand delivered pair of socks that you had to knit from wool you sheared, carded, and spun yourself? How do those compare to a pair of socks you had to pick out at a brick and mortar store a few weeks ahead of time so that you could package and ship them in time for Father's day?

No two people will answer that question the exact same way.

 

Is the 'average American' spending more than $10 per month on luxuries? EG: fast food, beer, cigs, movies, restaurants, processed food, snack foods, hair stylists, travel, new clothes, etc etc etc. If so, then they can certainly afford to invest in the stock market.

 

I doubt the ubiquitous sibling of capitalist democracy ('corruption') has much to do with it. Curruption exists all over the world, and more so in economies which are now thriving.

The problems we are seeing in the First World are almost certainly a result of wealth and safety driven hubris.

 

what most ignore, or perhaps just ignorant of facts, is that all of their own individual wealth was made possible by someone else that did a better job of acquiring wealth... eliminate those person's drive to make wealth and no one will have any...

 

See: opportunity cost.

As the cost of those goods goes down the perceived opportunity cost of responsible behavior like saving and investment goes up.

 

This is why the intangible QOL factors and personal property must be included in any reasonable definition of wealth. Otherwise, if it's all financial assets, it's a whimsical, one-sided foamy resentment fallacy.

For the Complex propaganda definition, it's as if you walked into a Walmart, picked out a nice flat screen TV, plopped down your $1000, a Walton and Samsung and a trucking company and... got a little richer... and then you left the store without the TV and have 0 to show for your purchase. Not including personal property in "wealth" leads directly to that result. Nonsense.

It's as if someone or some company cured cancer and they got filthy stinking rich due to that innovation... and no value was assigned as "wealth" to the extra lifespan on the other side of the transaction. Not including intangible QOL value in "wealth" leads directly to that result. Nonsense.

 

How about bailing out farmers? Why do Republicans ignore the socialism right under their noses?

And you think Amazon deserves $3 billion in tax "incentives"? Amazon??? Can we throw more money at these "starving" corporations? The bailouts weren't enough? Trump's tax cuts weren't enough? When does it end? You're just begging for Amazon-Google-Apple to control things. You're not going to like it. You Republicans can't stand the tech companies already. It's our good luck their owners all have a liberal slant, but I agree with Warren and Republicans on this one. They are way too powerful. The last thing they need are "tax incentives".

AOC didn't think Amazon should be given tax incentives for fairness reasons. I agree with her. She doesn't care if the deal increases revenue or not. It's inherently wrong to reward Amazon during a time of staggering income/wealth inequality. These corporations would step over your dying body in a second to pick up an extra penny for the shareholders. You want to cast your lot with them? Yeah, that's worked well in the past. Megacorporations always have our best interests at heart.

Oh, I think he could liquidate that 16% stake he has in Amazon over time, say ten years, and get at least 90% of the value back, which makes him obscenely outrageously wealthy. It's really outran Bezos at this point. He could die tomorrow and Amazon will still be a behemoth for a very long time. The groundwork has been laid. The challenge for Amazon now is not to **** it all up. They don't need Bezos for that.

And Bezo's wealth is a function of having 16% ownership of Amazon, not the ideas in his head. If he was just "really smart guy" Bezos instead of "16% owner" Bezos, he'd be some anonymous consultant or VP.

 

Anyone can afford to invest in the stock market.

Unless you're homeless. Otherwise, chances are you won't be able to afford to invest in the stock market.

 

I have asked for data, you don’t seem to have any.
If you want a discussion on your made up metric you must provide data to quantify your position.

So far you have failed to do that.

 

precisely...

and just how would they assign value to that extended life that was given... for me, that's priceless and far above any monetary value of being...

 

"Deserve" is a very interesting phrase. Amazon engages in business operations and along the way accrues business expenses. These business expenses allows Amazon to deduct taxes. You make it seem as if someone decided Amazon should have tax incentives for... reasons.

I live in New York; have so for a number of years and that is a rather charitable interpretation of the congresswoman's position. For the most part, she was confused about the deal and sought to misrepresent the Amazon deal at every opportunity. The deal, for the most part, was fair. Majority of people here supported it; Democrats brokered it; the deal even managed to get Gov Cuomo and De Baslio to work together on it (and they hate one another).

There is a separate argument to be made about the merits of providing subsidies for engaging in specific business activity; however, that is the current game we have.

I also work in Sales & Trading. There is no way he would be able to liquidate even 5% of his holdings without a) the SEC halting trading for AMZN stock or B) imploding the value of AMZN, making it worth significantly less than the current market price.

Besides, every seller needs a buyer in the marketplace. If you want billionaires to liquidate their assets to pay for a wealth tax and the only people who can afford to purchase Bezo's stake in AMZN are billions, who is going to be on the receiving end of that trade? You?

 

His definition of wealth isn't incorrect; it's just very broad. On Series exams, the administers simply define it the value of all assets.