OT – Bottom 50% of America holds 1% of wealth

[ocrenter]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/households-wealth-american-1-percent_n_1687015.html#slide=828986

This is a problem since ancient times. Since the start of societies, as time progress, the rich will get richer.

When it comes to wealth, the game Monopoly eerily parallels life. As long as someone does not land on luxury tax or income tax at every single turn, the guy with the most properties eventually force bankruptcy on the rest of the players, essentially, wealth does naturally help generate more wealth. We see this in ancient long enduring places like China and India, where after thousands of years, the top 1% owned essentially EVERYTHING.

We are already starting to walk down this same path. What do we do?

[davelj]

Capital begets capital; wealth begets wealth.

One of my favorite quotes of all time:

“Turning $100 into $110 is work; turning $100 million into $110 million is inevitable.” – Edgar Bronfman Jr.

Where inequality is concerned, nothing moves the dial in the absence of steeply progressive tax rates at the very top of the wealth pyramid, as well as treating capital gains and dividends more like earned income.

[EconProf]

The Huffington Post piece is true, but grossly misleading.
There are essentially two ways to measure and compare economic well-being: income and wealth. Wealth is a “stock” measuring one’s assets minus liabilities. Anyone can (and occassionally should) add up all their financial and real assets, at market value, and subtract their liabilities in order to get their net worth.
Income is a flow, measured over a period of time, such as a month or year.
Wealth is far more unequally distributed than income, which may be why the left-leaning Huff Post likes to concentrate on it. Furthermore, the trend is to more and more unequal distribution over recent decades as people are conned into taking on more and more credit card debt to buy goodies. Many decades ago, before credit cards, everyone had savings accounts and rainy-day money, even the poor. Now we just assume we can hit our CC if an emergency presents itself. This all helps account for the growing disparity in “wealth”.
Income still looks to be very unequal in America, and appears to be
getting more so over time. But even income figures can be misleading. The measures of “income” say nothing about consumption, which is far more equally distributed. One reason is that government figures ignor “in kind” income, such as food stamps, housing subsidies, free child care, etc., all of which have exploded in scope and size in recent years. So a “poor” family may have only a $20,000 official income, but may be consuming at a $40,000 level, year after year.
Official income figures also ignor underground work, cash income, etc. Also, income government income figures always talk about before-tax income, not after-tax., a big factor with our state and federal progressive tax structure.
Economic well-being is tricky to measure, and should always include all the assumptions and definitions.

[Arraya]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307112614.htmMarket Exchange Rules Responsible for Wealth Concentration, Physicists Say
ScienceDaily (Mar. 7, 2012) — Two Brazilian physicists have shown that wealth concentration invariably stems from a particular type of market exchange rules — where agents cannot receive more income than their own capital. The authors concluded that maximum inequalities ensue from free markets, which are governed by such seemingly fair rules

[an]

A few countries have solved this problem in the past. The two that came to mind is Cambodia and Vietnam. Cambodia killed all their wealthy and smart people (at least those who weren’t successful in escaping before the massacre). Then they “redistribute” the wealth to the bottom 50%. With Vietnam, they have the police go through all the rich people’s house and confiscate all wealth and “redistribute” it to the poor. I put redistribute in quotation, because it didn’t really happen. The poor continue to stay more but it’s just a different group of people that end up being rich.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]A few countries have solved this problem in the past. The two that came to mind is Cambodia and Vietnam. Cambodia killed all their wealthy and smart people (at least those who weren’t successful in escaping before the massacre). Then they “redistribute” the wealth to the bottom 50%. With Vietnam, they have the police go through all the rich people’s house and confiscate all wealth and “redistribute” it to the poor. I put redistribute in quotation, because it didn’t really happen. The poor continue to stay more but it’s just a different group of people that end up being rich.[/quote]

lol

[briansd1]

[quote=davelj]Capital begets capital; wealth begets wealth.

One of my favorite quotes of all time:

“Turning $100 into $110 is work; turning $100 million into $110 million is inevitable.” – Edgar Bronfman Jr.

Where inequality is concerned, nothing moves the dial in the absence of steeply progressive tax rates at the very top of the wealth pyramid, as well as treating capital gains and dividends more like earned income.[/quote]

That’s pretty well said.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu][quote=AN]A few countries have solved this problem in the past. The two that came to mind is Cambodia and Vietnam. Cambodia killed all their wealthy and smart people (at least those who weren’t successful in escaping before the massacre). Then they “redistribute” the wealth to the bottom 50%. With Vietnam, they have the police go through all the rich people’s house and confiscate all wealth and “redistribute” it to the poor. I put redistribute in quotation, because it didn’t really happen. The poor continue to stay more but it’s just a different group of people that end up being rich.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

hey, that pretty much happened in China too.

the point is ultimately the PEOPLE do make a choice, and in the case of China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, the 99% of the have nots choose Communism. In hindsight it wasn’t a very smart choice, but when income inequity is so great, Pol Pot and Mao and Ho Chi Minh then start to look very good to the population at large.

[briansd1]

I don’t know… Maybe it was poetic justice for Russian princes to end up penniless taxi drivers in France after the Revolution.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t know… Maybe it was poetic justice for Russian princes to end up penniless taxi drivers in France after the Revolution.[/quote]

key theme here is eventually the inequality becomes so great that revolutions are triggered.

but given the default is wealth gradually shifts to the very few, inevitably, a revolution becomes necessary after another few hundred years.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]hey, that pretty much happened in China too.

the point is ultimately the PEOPLE do make a choice, and in the case of China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, the 99% of the have nots choose Communism. In hindsight it wasn’t a very smart choice, but when income inequity is so great, Pol Pot and Mao and Ho Chi Minh then start to look very good to the population at large.[/quote]
Yes, the people will make a choice and if they make the wrong choice, look at what happened? The rich people either get killed or fled the country. They’re not going to stay and put up with the crap. There are plenty of other countries that are much more willing to welcome them and their wealth with open arms. This also is not new. It happened before. That’s why there are plenty of Chinese in Cambodia and Vietnam. This also is why there was a big migration of North Vietnamese to South Vietnam in 1945. This is also why there’s a big exodus of all those who can out of Vietnam between 1975-1985 (at any cost, including many death).

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]hey, that pretty much happened in China too.

the point is ultimately the PEOPLE do make a choice, and in the case of China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, the 99% of the have nots choose Communism. In hindsight it wasn’t a very smart choice, but when income inequity is so great, Pol Pot and Mao and Ho Chi Minh then start to look very good to the population at large.[/quote]
Yes, the people will make a choice and if they make the wrong choice, look at what happened? The rich people either get killed or fled the country. They’re not going to stay and put up with the crap. There are plenty of other countries that are much more willing to welcome them and their wealth with open arms. This also is not new. It happened before. That’s why there are plenty of Chinese in Cambodia and Vietnam. This also is why there was a big migration of North Vietnamese to South Vietnam in 1945. This is also why there’s a big exodus of all those who can out of Vietnam between 1975-1985 (at any cost, including many death).[/quote]

the key is a system in place to prevent the extreme wealth distribution. it is good for everyone, especially the wealthy.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=flu][quote=AN]A few countries have solved this problem in the past. The two that came to mind is Cambodia and Vietnam. Cambodia killed all their wealthy and smart people (at least those who weren’t successful in escaping before the massacre). Then they “redistribute” the wealth to the bottom 50%. With Vietnam, they have the police go through all the rich people’s house and confiscate all wealth and “redistribute” it to the poor. I put redistribute in quotation, because it didn’t really happen. The poor continue to stay more but it’s just a different group of people that end up being rich.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

classic!

[Coronita]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=flu][quote=AN]A few countries have solved this problem in the past. The two that came to mind is Cambodia and Vietnam. Cambodia killed all their wealthy and smart people (at least those who weren’t successful in escaping before the massacre). Then they “redistribute” the wealth to the bottom 50%. With Vietnam, they have the police go through all the rich people’s house and confiscate all wealth and “redistribute” it to the poor. I put redistribute in quotation, because it didn’t really happen. The poor continue to stay more but it’s just a different group of people that end up being rich.[/quote]

lol[/quote]

hey, that pretty much happened in China too.

the point is ultimately the PEOPLE do make a choice, and in the case of China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, the 99% of the have nots choose Communism. In hindsight it wasn’t a very smart choice, but when income inequity is so great, Pol Pot and Mao and Ho Chi Minh then start to look very good to the population at large.[/quote]

How is the United Socialist State of America 2012 different?

[Coronita]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]hey, that pretty much happened in China too.

the point is ultimately the PEOPLE do make a choice, and in the case of China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, the 99% of the have nots choose Communism. In hindsight it wasn’t a very smart choice, but when income inequity is so great, Pol Pot and Mao and Ho Chi Minh then start to look very good to the population at large.[/quote]
Yes, the people will make a choice and if they make the wrong choice, look at what happened? The rich people either get killed or fled the country. They’re not going to stay and put up with the crap. There are plenty of other countries that are much more willing to welcome them and their wealth with open arms. This also is not new. It happened before. That’s why there are plenty of Chinese in Cambodia and Vietnam. This also is why there was a big migration of North Vietnamese to South Vietnam in 1945. This is also why there’s a big exodus of all those who can out of Vietnam between 1975-1985 (at any cost, including many death).[/quote]

the key is a system in place to prevent the extreme wealth distribution. it is good for everyone, especially the wealthy.[/quote]

Our extreme wealth distribution is no where near the extreme wealth distribution in asia.

And if you want an example of forcefully trying to redistribute wealth and allowing a bloated government pig, look no further than…Greece..

[Author]

Posts