Is wealth inequality a problem?
No it's the natural state of the world.
there would be no wealth without inequality
>>1115270
Some succeed, many fail, winner take all economics of the globalized world will exacerbate this
Only problem is peasant revolt, so dont forget tax deductible donations to your local police, so they can afford a tank and swat team to troubleshoot social problems in your neighborhood
>>1115270
It's the stupidest shit ever. If everyone had access to necessities, nobody starved, everyone had access to education, everyone had a roof over their head, yet the "elite" had more than the "working class", wealth inequality would still exist. The process of evening out income disparity for the sake of evening it out is an asinine perversion of economic freedom. After a certain point just let people earn what they earn and fuck right off.
>>1115297
Yes. In Switzerland, wealth inequality is huge since there are so many millionaires... but even the lowest-class workers earn $4,000 per month, so it's not a problem.
Whereas in most poor countries (say Congo or Ethiopia), there is no wealth inequality: everybody is poor. Does it sound good?
>>1115329
In Congo and Ethiopia 99% of the people are dirt poor but the 1% that isn't is filthy rich due to corruption which western institutions encourage.
does the lion ask if it's OK to eat the gazelle ?
>>1115359
Lion asks by the chase. Then the gazelle give up saying "yes u can eat my now. Ready for eating." so the lion eats. But in Afrika we always say "when lion die, his body becomes the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so we r all connected in the great circle of life".
So anon i ask u this then. Does the gazel ask the lion to eat him? I have never seen this though some say they have.
>>1115379
>so we r all connected in the great circle of life
Shut up and get a job, hippie.
>>1115423
>not getting obvious lion king troll
Kek
>>1115428
>he thinks "circle of life" came from The Lion King
Grow up, Millennial faggot.
>>1115270
It's an inevitable consequence of a monetary system where it's possible to make more money by having more money.
>>1115435
It's lion king dude. It's almost a direct quote.
>>1115435
If you think The Lion King was an original story from 1994, you're hardly old enough to tell a millenial to grow up.
>>1115272
>that pic
I would just lodge a complaint, threaten to sue, and ask for a refund. This shit would be over in a day if white men started applying the kikery that minorities and women use.
>>1115270
Only if you are poor.
Anyone who thinks this is a yes-or-no, black-and-white issue is a complete idiot. It's like asking if tea is better consumed while still boiling hot or if it's better when frozen.
In Ancient Rome, the aristocratic class used slave labor on their farms. They got such good economies of scale from using slaves that family farmers too poor to buy some of their own weren't able to compete and would just sell off their land to the aristocrats, who would then be able to increase production and buy more slaves and drive more free-holders out of business and acquire more land. It eventually got to the point where, if you weren't a slave and you weren't an aristocrat, you had no real role to play in society. Hundreds of thousands of people flocked to cities where they would live in slums, mooch off of the bread dole that the aristocrats provided to placate them, and watch circuses until they died at an early age from some common disease.
Clearly, the wealth inequality in Rome wasn't the product of brilliant men rising to the top and the dregs never doing anything to drag themselves up a rung, it was the product of the Roman Senate setting up a rigged economic system that concentrated all of the wealth into their hands. And if you think about it you'll find that, with free trade and immigration and corporate tax breaks and the rise of the modern welfare state, that something very similar is happening today.
>>1116388
>Rome differed from Greek city-states in allowing freed slaves to become citizens. (…) Some freedmen enjoyed enormous success and became quite wealthy.
Literally on Wikipedia. And guess how they got wealthy? By borrowing money to set up a business.
Talking about "wealth inequality" largely misses the point. It's the process that matters and the manner in which wealth is accumulated by the mega rich.
What is even the major form wealth exist in today? Financial assets held by a relatively small chunk of the population.
If you want to get real investment going on again and high wage policy this is what you would do:
1. Require every company with more than 50 employees to issue new shares of their stock each year equivalent to 20 percent of their profits.
2. These shares would be held in a "labor trust" which would be collectively owned by all wage earners across the economy. The shares would not be sold and in due time most firms would come to have the majority of their stock owned by the trust.
3. After firms become majority worker owned the government could purchase the remaining privately held shares and then turn the enterprises over to the workers of those enterprises to be run democratically.
4. Following the buyout the firm would no longer pay dividends but would pay a capital assets tax instead -- the leasing fee the firms workers pay for use of the firms assets.
>>1115270
Yes. Not just for people who have reduced potential to raise their standard of living by having less access to purchase resources. But also because it's bad for the economy since less money to consumers = less money spent = fall in economic productivity. So the overall economy suffers.
Ignore all the memers who say it doesn't matter. They'd rather be edgy and different than have an actually valid opinion.
>>1116397
>some
Some people got rich in Communist Russia. That means it was a purely capitalist system, right?
>>1116409
But your point is just wrong. Freedmen becoming successful (especially in the maritime trade) were nothing special. Social mobility was common in the Roman Empire, and lots of super-rich weren't aristocrats at all.
Meanwhile, the aristocracy just disappeared from Rome.
>in the years 96-97 AD, i.e. under Nerva, half of the patrician families tallied 30 years earlier didn't exist anymore.
>30 years after Nerva, only 1 out of the 45 "original" patrician families (restored by Julius Caesar 175 years earlier) remained.
Equality of outcome is an impossible and undesirable state and equality of opportunity should be encouraged otherwise societies become stagnant and talented individuals will be denied the opportunity to contribute to economic development and will not feel any connection to wider society
>>1115274
>there would be no wealth without inequality
This is a core tenant of our current reality that is anathema to the leftist mindset.
>>1116403
Exceedingly prudent, but that shit won't fly (yet) in Amerifat.
To a degree, I don't think so. wealth inequality is what determines socio-economic classes. without the strive to become richer and the want to be like those who are at the top, there would definitely be a massive decrease in innovations and advancements in society.
>>1115270
just depends on for whom.
For men, below the median income, yes it's a problem.
No its not. I slacked off in highschool and got shit grades. There are means by which i could get into collage but ive decided to stay on the workplace level and enjoy simple pleasures. Its my choice. I currently make $20 000 CAN a year and if i stick to my budget i can save just about $10 000 a year. Ive saved $38000 after 4 years of a shitty factory job. In literally at the bottom of the barrel and i can still save enough for emergencies and investing. I have running electricity, a roof over my head, entertainment, food (enough for me to go obese if i choose) and internet access which lets me better myself through knowledge. With that knowledge i can start a business, invest or network.
Lets get the point. People who say wealth inequality is a problem are implying that the money/physical property the top earners and savers possess should be redistributed. This is theft no matter how you spin it. And even if you did succeed those people would never generate that wealth again if they know you have to power to do that. Then your living in a world where no one wants to succeed too much or else they get "shaken down" for any excess wealth they have.
>>1115379
>eat a bunch of animals your entire life, basically be a seriel killer
>it's okay guys, my piss and shit redistribute parts of their body into the earth, and i'll occupy a 5 foot area of grass that'll be diseased as fuck but you can eat there if you want.
>>1117430
>Other people are willing to pay my cost of living so things are okay.
Christ, anon. I pay more than your salary in taxes and even I know the system is fucking the poor more than you do.
Why do welfare checks go to democrat voters instead of all the homeless people I see everywhere?
>>1117436
>Other people are willing to pay my cost of living so things are okay.
What do you mean by this?
>>1117443
Shit man. That's like asking why Pajeet doesn't poo in the loo.
It's our universe's greatest mystery
>>1115272
Shouldn't they just treat everyone equally?
>>1116403
Where can I read more about this?
>ITT
See you all on the street in a few more years.
>>1116403
Too many people still obsessed with Cold War dogma for something like this to ever be attempted.
>>1115329
Switzerland actually has low income inequality, at least compared to third world countries like Burgerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
>>1115270
no,plain corruption and in your face nepotism is.
it should stop so at least some can hope for a better tomorrow.
>>1115329
The less developed countries have massive inequality dude.
>>1115423
I want underage to leave
>>1116388
Y-you are absolutely right.
>>1115270
No, stupidity is.
It's funny because alot of poor people say money doesn't make you happy but yet they always want money and blame the rich for their poor choices.
No, but it's a symptom of a much larger problem.
>>1117501
>whites
>equal to everyone else in the eyes of the poor, low, held-down minorities
kek. you can't be serious, anon. Minorities only want the blood of the whites (East Asians are next on the chopping block too after whites fall).
>>1116397
Didn't the only slaves that had the opportunity to become citizens have to be gladiators first?
Correct me if I'm wrong, haven't studied Ancient Rome in a while.
>>1116357
Holy shit it's from '94? But I wasn't even born then :O
>>1119178
Literally this. No matter how much we pretend we're not racist, everybody wants to see everyone else burn.
>>1115329
lol
>>1116388
Overall the net output of farming grew as poor fucks were driven out of it. Then they went into town and had to start crafting/building/trading shit.
This is how the labor market works.
>>1116403
How long do you think such a state would last without inevitably some figures accumulating more and more power until the whole system becomes obsolete?
Has there ever been a wealth/ownership distribution that either managed to last or wasn't the result of some societal collapse?
Major wealth inequality seems like a natural last phase of any civilization. Not like we can do anything about it.
>>1119134
>alot of poor people say money doesn't make you happy
Have you ever actually heard anyone say this? Especially someone poor?
If anything I'd imagine it's what the wealthy say.
>>1119299
Pretty much what the wealthy say. The only poor people who do it are priests.
>>1115270
no. wealth inequality is often correlated with non-capitalist and crony atmospheres. its a misleading correlation.
wealthy people spend and invest their money more wisely. creating more wealth for themselves. that's "inequal" but fully within their rights.
smart people investing money creates more jobs for other smart people. dumb people just waste money.
the pyramids weren't built by "equality."
>>1115270
Not by itself, but opposing interests for the wealthiest and the majority is a huge problem. Wealth inequality usually means interests of the ruling class and the majority are diverging, but I'd call it more a symptom than a root cause.
>>1119299
I have. I hear it all the time from poor people (namely my parents and somr extended family). Its almost like a defense mechanism.
>>1115354
>ethopia
>filthy rich
Who cares if 1% can buy a can of coke with there life savings.
Wealth inequality inn burgerland seems to deny a lot of people a chance of taking further education and becoming more productive, so yes
>>1119140
That's great and all as long as you're a member of the ruling class
>protip: unless your last name ends in -stein or -berg you're a member of the underclass
>>1117367
until you're bitching about the jews and their disproportionate wealth and power
>>1117504
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy
>>1119295
>How long do you think such a state would last without inevitably some figures accumulating more and more power until the whole system becomes obsolete?
It's the process that matters, that's why "redistributing" wealth today wouldn't solve much. Large corporations and their securities are the hearth of modern capitalism. Who has the power to control the broad policies guiding a firm such as its growth rate of sales, social usefulness of their products, or the extent of reliance on external finance has the real power of control over market behaviour. The control over those decisions today pass hands between bankers, industrialists, merchants, hired corporate managers, etc...
>>1119444
>wealthy people spend and invest their money more wisely. creating more wealth for themselves. that's "inequal" but fully within their rights.
>smart people investing money creates more jobs for other smart people. dumb people just waste money.
That "wealth creation" is really just asset inflation. The wealthy feel the economy is better off if their net worth rises, even when their debt servicing obligations also rise and the access price to housing and other property increases.
Actual physical capital formation and real job creation becomes less and less the stronger and more influence those "intelligent investors" become.
No, but if you look at the US then inequality is a huge problem because the US tax system favours the rich at the expense of the middle class which is the engine of the economy
It's not. It's choices leading to negative co sequences.
>>1115270
not for me
It's a demonstrable fact that countries with high wealth inequality are shitholes with the exception of Denmark, Swizerland and the US.
In general if your country has high wealth inequality it means that there is a dynastic class of people in control of the economy and the rest are basically serfs who don't own shit and live in debt.
The US is atypical because it is huge. So even though the rich pretty much own everything, there are so many of them that there is still some degree of class mobility and not everything is owned by a few oligarchs.
>>1119717
no. poor people literally just buy extra goods. that creates jobs if everyone is a farmer buying more harvest. if machines do most of the work, they just funnel their money back into the hands of the rich. don't be dumb.
the wealthy funnel their money into things like healthcare research.
are you saying nike air jordans make more jobs than medical research, that medical research is just "Asset inflation"? don't be fucking stupid.
>>1120190
Except that's not at all what wealthy people typically do. 99% of the time the put their money on the market to participate in an equity themed gambling game that doesn't provide a net benefit to anyone else.
No. Income inequality might be another issue, but how people use their income to generate wealth isn't.
>>1115270
If you took all the money in the world and doled it out evenly the exact same people would have the same proportions of it inside of a year.
>>1116403
This is beyond retarded. Let's break it down step by step why you're so stupid that you should never be allowed near a financial instrument again.
>1. Require every company with more than 50 employees to issue new shares of their stock each year equivalent to 20 percent of their profits.
Assuming you somehow cracked down on the immediate and absurd shell game this would create whereby Wal-Mart or IBM or whatever suddenly becomes hundreds of thousands of wholly owned subsidiaries that all employ exactly 50 people this plan is still retarded. You are socializing (i.e. taxing) 20% of the profits of every business every year but not socializing years when businesses turn a loss? Or can they socialize 20% of losses as "negative shares" every year too? This whole share business is stupid as well because...
>2. These shares would be held in a "labor trust" which would be collectively owned by all wage earners across the economy. The shares would not be sold and in due time most firms would come to have the majority of their stock owned by the trust.
Just say they are held by the government you insufferable twat. That's what you mean. The government now owns some nebulous stake in every company. I'm assuming you went with the demand for shares so that the government gets some sort of say in how the company is run. So we command economy now. By the way, this has ALWAYS led to massive inefficiencies, waste, and abuse every time it has been tried in human history. Governments are not good at running for-profit enterprises. This is a one-way ticket to Stalin-town.
>>1116403
>>1120465
>3. After firms become majority worker owned the government could purchase the remaining privately held shares and then turn the enterprises over to the workers of those enterprises to be run democratically.
"Thanks for taking the personal and financial risk and doing the work to start this business but now we're just going to take everything you built for a price that we deem 'fair'." --How to kill all business dead, instantly
>4. Following the buyout the firm would no longer pay dividends but would pay a capital assets tax instead -- the leasing fee the firms workers pay for use of the firms assets.
So the wholly government owned and operated business is going to pay taxes to the government? Why? The government already owns the entire business, absorbing its profit entirely. Oh, you're still under the delusion that "the workers" will be in charge. Ha ha you stupid faggot.
>>1120465
Accidentally breaking up large corporates into smaller competitive units isn't that big of a worry of mine.
Business investment is too important to the overall health of the economy to be left to the fluctuations of the market. Individual entrepreneurs acting creatively isn't a problem but the collective, non-entrepreneurial control of the investment process by capitalists is.
Rebuilding the productive industrial side of the economy means you're going to have to step on the feet of vested business interests. Any type of realistic change would have to be slow though, you can't just outright seize all the assets of every billionaire without chaos.
The difference would be that the bulk of funds for new investment would be generated by a flat-rate capital assets tax and returned to the economy through a network of public investment banks. The market would still direct investment allocation, there would be no central authority dictating consumption, production, or employment. Raw materials, instruments of production, and consumer goods would all be bought and sold at prices determined by the market.
There would just be no dependence on private savings for economic development. Instead of paying interest and dividends to private individuals companies would make their payments directly to a public institution that injects them back into the economy.
Banks would be charged a centrally determined interest rate on the funds they receive. They would still be expected to make a profit. Banks would compete trying to balance the riskiness of their loans against the interest rates they charge. Managers of successful banks would be rewarded, managers whose banks performed poorly would be sacked but in all cases bank profits are returned to the national investment fund.
Citizens would just now also have a say in what is and isn't invested in from the investment fund.
Only when it's the government's fault
>>1116403
>After firms become majority worker owned the government could purchase the remaining privately held shares and then turn the enterprises over to the workers of those enterprises to be run democratically.
A way for communism to start. I wouldn't trust the government to control that shit. I don't even count on social security with the way our government spends our retirement.
>>1120359
>citation needed
also
>putting money in a market doesn't benefit anyone
shiggy diggy
>>1120712
Putting money into a FIRE economy will most likely just result in asset inflation, that'll benefit some people but you're not getting real wealth creation.
Financialized economies are horrible at actual physical capital formation or creating real meaningful jobs. The interest of average people is in maximizing domestic employment and economic potential but financial planners aim at maximizing the price of real estate, stocks and financial securities relative to wage levels.
The Postindustrial economy has been a total failure.
>>1120762
>"The post industrial economy has been a complete failure"
>He posts from his climate controlled home on his computer.
>>1120987
>attributes benefits of an industrial economy to banking
Are you even trying?
>>1115270
It is if you have the shit end of the stick.
