How Billionaires Got $637 Billion Richer During The Pandemic

[Jordan Welsh]

Anyone interested in why these matters are not discussed in the mainstream media Noam Chomsky’s topic of manufacturing consent is highly insightful with how mass media is used for private financial interests to programme your mind & mislead you from the underlying foundational issues of society.

 

 

[Jordan Welsh]

 

[Consept]

2 hours ago, datamonster said:

Because opportunities are not evenly distributed. But that's not "capitalism's fault".

You can have capitalism and better equality of opportunity, as evident by the tremendous differences between capitalist countries. 

Also bear in mind that this very problem is often far worse under other systems. Essentially, we moved towards capitalism because the prior system, Feudalism, was far worse.

Even in Socialist systems this can be far worse if they aren't managed properly, see Venezuela, for example.

So, this is an issue resulting from complicated mixture of geopolitics, policies, culture, economics, education, etc. rather than simply "capitalism".

Sorry but you're completely missing my point. What you think I'm saying is that capitalism is bad or that it's it's fault that there's inequality, that's a seperate argument. 

What I'm actually saying is that capitalism may or may not be the best system but our incarnation of it is flawed and unfair because there are loopholes that allow the richest people to pay the lowest tax, lower as a percentage than the normal person. Not only that but things that are explicitly supposed to equal and blind like justice, obviously are unequal toward the richest people. If a normal persons business goes bankrupt they don't receive a government backed bailout. True capitalism should let these companies die, because they failed. 

So my point is that capatilsm isn't inherently bad but it can easily be corrupted and taken advantage of if you're at the top of the tree, which means it's not really a meritocracy or anything it professes to be. 

[Jordan Welsh]

Great video on capitalism’s distribution crisis of funnelling too many resources as well as finances to too little people & the global effects which result.

 

 

[Gesundheit]

6 hours ago, datamonster said:

So, this is an issue resulting from complicated mixture of geopolitics, policies, culture, economics, education, etc. rather than simply "capitalism".

Actually, no. It is simply capitalism. Regardless of where you live. It is capitalism. Of course, the term is an umbrella for a cluster of complicated issues and reasons, but essentially it's the capitalist paradigm limitations on a global scale. This can be easily observed in your life. Compare your income 10-20 years ago with your income today. It has definitely increased. However, the things that you can buy with the same amount of money is now less. Everything now has changed and become more expensive, but your income has not been able to keep up with that change. This mismatch will differ depending on your location, i.e. The GDP of your country (Mine has severely declined over the past decade due to a cluster of reasons, so I can see the future of other countries). In most first world countries, the GDP is increasing, but the rate of increase is very low that it doesn't match the growth in population. Which means that unless you're a capitalist, your money will keep decreasing, inevitably. Even if it appears to be increasing in number, it is actually decreasing in value when gauged against gold. How much gold your monthly salary can buy today vs. How much it was able to buy 10-20 years ago. And this is the case even in the USA, today's strongest economy. It's a lot less apparent than in other countries, but nevertheless is the case.

[Gesundheit]

58 minutes ago, datamonster said:

Yeah, that's called inflation, not capitalism. Since you mention it, one of the least capitalist countries, Venezuela, has by far the highest inflation rate, how ironic...

This is a problem that every society has faced throughout history. It's the problem of how to best distribute resources over the population. With capitalism, however, it's worsening for the majority of people. What you're saying here doesn't make sense, because the problem is real for 90% of people and requires a solution that capitalism does not only lack, but also works against finding one and for making it worse. Most of us are forced to face this reality and deal with it, while the remaining 10% of people have already bought their tickets out of it, by standing upon our shoulders. This bourgeoisie attitude that you're suggesting only further adds to the problem. Us working hard only strengthens the people with the most money and leaves us weaker and poorer. It's ultimately unsustainable, and it will definitely collapse.

[Gesundheit]

@datamonster Ha! But I wasn't suggesting socialism, either.

The problem goes deeper than which economic system to adopt or what percentage of each, for human beings are not robots, but rather highly selfish beings. Whatever system we create, it will be exploited, because humans are corrupt & unaware.

I don't know, tbh, maybe all of these discussions are pointless because no society can be eternal. But it was nice exchanging ideas with you.

Have a great day, and turn your savings into gold. Take this advice from someone who has seen the economy of his country collapsing. At least with gold, you know you're not losing your money.

[Jordan Welsh]

Pretty great presentation on the historical evolution of poverty & income inequality although this is from a billionaire who is  bias to a degree as well as the great challenges humanity has overcame throughout history.

Remember! billionaires have differential levels of developmental capabilities cognitively & morally thus determine their motivations as well as visions for the future. Money is inherently not good or bad but what is important is how the money is invested & accumulated predicting the impact on humanity.

 

 

[Hansu]

I fail to see the problem with wealth inequality when we speak of the superwealthy. In the end they want to invest their money so the money ends up building companies, building complexes etc. I dont see a big difference between a superwealthy man making investments versus a government making investments (Except the wealthy man is likely going to be more successful). In the end, whatever the super rich makes from the public comes around and back to the public.

Also, I fail to see how taking money from super rich people is any different from printing money willy nilly. In fact, I only see this kind of thinking as hinderance against the super rich investing in their companies to say, researching how SpaceX could build inexpensive self-landing boosters. I cant see how anyone would invest in this kind of experiment if it wasn't for Elon Musk being super rich and having a dream. There is no short term gains in that kind of investment that capitalism thrives on.

The only place where I can find wealth inequality doing bad is in the 0-50% against 50-95% bracket. There you can find the true way western societies and capitalism shits on the poor, but that is a whole different discussion, as this one is about the super rich.

[Consept]

2 hours ago, Hansu said:

I fail to see the problem with wealth inequality when we speak of the superwealthy. In the end they want to invest their money so the money ends up building companies, building complexes etc. I dont see a big difference between a superwealthy man making investments versus a government making investments (Except the wealthy man is likely going to be more successful). In the end, whatever the super rich makes from the public comes around and back to the public.

Also, I fail to see how taking money from super rich people is any different from printing money willy nilly. In fact, I only see this kind of thinking as hinderance against the super rich investing in their companies to say, researching how SpaceX could build inexpensive self-landing boosters. I cant see how anyone would invest in this kind of experiment if it wasn't for Elon Musk being super rich and having a dream. There is no short term gains in that kind of investment that capitalism thrives on.

The only place where I can find wealth inequality doing bad is in the 0-50% against 50-95% bracket. There you can find the true way western societies and capitalism shits on the poor, but that is a whole different discussion, as this one is about the super rich.

What youre talking about here is trickle down economics where you give the super rich tax breaks and incentives, the theory being the super rich will provide jobs and boost the economy. Simply put this doesnt really work to boost the economy or even necessarily provide more jobs. Theres a short article on why it doesnt really work here if youre interested - https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572#:~:text=Trickle-down economics generally does,revenues in the long term.

Ive heard one economist put it like, if you have one billionaire they may or not have a business and employ people but regarding their spending lets say they buy 10 houses, they buy the most expensive clothes, cars, whatever, that spending power is still no match for if you empower the middle class and create 1000 millionaires, in which case theyll buy at least 1000 houses, 1000 cars, food, clothes whatever, this would be a massive boost to the economy continually, whereas the billionaire would essentially hoard their money in investments, providing little comparative spending. 

Does this mean just take money from the rich and give it to the middle class? Not really, what youd want is no sweetheart tax cuts and loopholes for the rich, meaning they just pay their fair share, with the middle class getting wage raises that match the output of the company and go up with it or even at minimum go up with inflation. 

 

[Gesundheit]

@Consept You've put your hand exactly on the wound. When the money is focused amongst the rich, it necessarily gets hoarded instead of being moving in a flux. And this is the core problem of capitalism.

[Hansu]

@Consept

In 2005 Amazon employed mere 12 000 people. In 2020, they employ 1.2 million people. If they had average salary (International, but still my guess is very humble) of 1500 US dollars per month, they are earning 1.8 billion dollars every month. Thats a lot of money going directly to housing, clothes, whatever else and its possible only because of one man and a dream. This would not be possible if Jeff Bezos did not invest back into Amazon. Bezos is not rich because he kept pumping money out of his company, he is rich because he keeps it in there.

I dont disagree with taxing the rich more. I also believe that Amazon employees should be given better salary and benefits, just because it is possible. But to me its idiotic that we keep blaming super rich people for doing successful investments and making more money. What we should do is to build a system that benefits from the super rich, tax them more. And like you said, most importantly we need to require their companies to raise the bar of how the employees are treated and paid on different industries. When we blame the super rich, we are avoiding the core issue which is the companies themselves, not whoever owns them.

[Leo Gura]

On 1/23/2021 at 3:10 PM, Gesundheit said:

However, the things that you can buy with the same amount of money is now less. Everything now has changed and become more expensive

This is actually very untrue.

On the absolute scale most consumer goods get cheaper all the time. If you spend 10% of your income to buy a car today, you will get a product that is 10x better than your daddy would get if he spent 10% of his income on a car back in the 80's.

Certain things like real estate are an exception. Although even when buying a house, the house you get today will be 10x better than a house built in the 1960's.

Today's middle class live better than yesterday's royalty. Yet it's never good enough.

Basically, if you earn low six figures these days, you can live like a king.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Hansu said:

@Consept

In 2005 Amazon employed mere 12 000 people. In 2020, they employ 1.2 million people. If they had average salary (International, but still my guess is very humble) of 1500 US dollars per month, they are earning 1.8 billion dollars every month. Thats a lot of money going directly to housing, clothes, whatever else and its possible only because of one man and a dream. This would not be possible if Jeff Bezos did not invest back into Amazon. Bezos is not rich because he kept pumping money out of his company, he is rich because he keeps it in there.

I dont disagree with taxing the rich more. I also believe that Amazon employees should be given better salary and benefits, just because it is possible. But to me its idiotic that we keep blaming super rich people for doing successful investments and making more money. What we should do is to build a system that benefits from the super rich, tax them more. And like you said, most importantly we need to require their companies to raise the bar of how the employees are treated and paid on different industries. When we blame the super rich, we are avoiding the core issue which is the companies themselves, not whoever owns them.

Your point is valid, there are some billionaires that provide jobs and value for the economy, there is an argument to be made that Amazon took away a lot of jobs by putting others out of business but im not necessarily presenting that argument. Jeff Bezos has a wealth of nearly $200 billion or 200,000 million. Now lets say he was taxed fairly and the tax cuts he was given could be given to the middle class (i know im simplifying) and lets say he ends losing 50 billion so he still has a wealth of $150 billion, that 50 billion could be 50,000 millionaires, meaning more money to spend on Amazon, meaning probably more money for Bezos anyway. Or lets say he improved the wages of everyone that worked at Amazon or even didnt compete with 3rd party sellers and just let businesses sell on Amazon without aggressive competition from Amazon itself, again this would empower people to make more money. 

So im not saying the super rich are evil, probably most people would do what they do, what im saying is that trickle down economics is not the best solution for the economy, there are better ways to do it. 

[Consept]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is actually very untrue.

On the absolute scale most consumer goods get cheaper all the time. If you spend 10% of your income to buy a car today, you will get a product that is 10x better than your daddy would get if he spent 10% of his income on a car back in the 80's.

Certain things like real estate are an exception. Although even when buying a house, the house you get today will be 10x better than a house built in the 1960's.

Today's middle class live better than yesterday's royalty. Yet it's never good enough.

Basically, if you earn low six figures these days, you can live like a king.

It will always be relative, if your boss is earning 1000x what you earn you will feel hard done by, i think we're wired to perceive this 

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura I guess you're right for not seeing the negative effects, because you live in America; the world's biggest economy. But I would leave the luxuries out of the picture for now and ask you a question: When you say consumer goods, does that include food and basic services (clean water, electricity, gas, internet, transportation, education, etc...)? Are these things getting cheaper? Or are you getting taxed more?

[Hansu]

7 hours ago, Consept said:

what im saying is that trickle down economics is not the best solution for the economy, there are better ways to do it. 

Like I said, IMO USA should find a way to encourage massive businesses to raise the bar for low- and mid-skilled workers, since they can. Im not an expert on the subject, but where I live the same was done through decades of strikes and unions (Then again, USA is not very fond of unions).

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Hansu