Wealth Inequality

[Value Collector]

I guess my main point is that the economy is not a cake where if i take a larger slice, you automatically get a smaller one. If i my company makes a million dollars, it's because i have delivered more than a million dollars of value back into the economy, I haven't stolen from anyone and nobody got less, we all got more.

My staff had more shifts available
My suppliers had greater sales
I paid more taxes
My customers had products they needed
And i made a profit, which i then reinvest the bulk of, or i spend generating more of the same benefits listed above for other businesses.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I see wealth inequality as a state of mind. Wealthy people have the thoughts of which they act upon that creates more monetary wealth than the majority of people. They use other people to get it such as employees and other peoples money such as banks or inherited wealth. Inequality will always be because individuals either don't want to be wealthy or don't know what to do to become wealthy.

 

[Value Collector]

I see wealth inequality as a state of mind. Wealthy people have the thoughts of which they act upon that creates more monetary wealth than the majority of people. They use other people to get it such as employees and other peoples money such as banks or inherited wealth. Inequality will always be because individuals either don't want to be wealthy or don't know what to do to become wealthy.

agreed, if you take away the incentive to be wealthy, there is a lot of great developments that wouldn't have gotten done. In recent times look at fortescue metals, an infrastructure project on a vast scale, without twiggy seeking fortune and making it happen, it would never have gotten done,

Say you made twiggy give up the entire fortune he has made and spread it throughout the global population, it would be less than $1 per person, and have zero affect on changing lives, but we would have cut the legs of a captain of industry with a track record of getting things done.

 

[Smurf1976]

I have no problem with the idea that those who succeed ought to gain a benefit from doing so. Otherwise we end up with classic socialism and after a while most stop bothering to make an effort if they're getting nothing in return. The poor don't get richer, but the rich end up as poor as everyone else.

On the other hand, I do see a definite problem when people have trouble getting access to medical treatment and so on in a "wealthy" country so there does need to be some balance in it.

Comparing now to, say, 30 years ago we've largely moved from a "mixed" economy to one that is far more capitalist / less socialist than it used to be. We had the balance about right in the past in my view, it's gone to far to one extreme in more recent times and that's not good for society as a whole.

 

[Klogg]

Except wealth does not adhere to a normal distribution - its possibly one of the most skewed distributions you will come across. There's nothing natural about it and hence why I believe its unsustainable.

Funnily enough I just finished reading Taleb's "Black Swan"...

 

[Value Collector]

On the other hand, I do see a definite problem when people have trouble getting access to medical treatment and so on in a "wealthy" country so there does need to be some balance in it.

Totally agree, i don't think a rob from the rich policy is a good way of achieving it though, i reckon Australia's tax system is about right, we just need to not waste so much of the tax we earn, i think paying the current marginal rate + gst on money i take home as spending money and paying 30% on money i leave invested in my company is fine, thats plenty of tax in my opinion.

Not to mention all the indirect taxes,

 

[CanOz]

Nice distraction from religion Craft!

I wonder what it would take to form and get a party elected with the "gift economy" as thier platform? Interesting to contemplate it.

 

[So_Cynical]

I see wealth inequality as a state of mind. Wealthy people have the thoughts of which they act upon that creates more monetary wealth than the majority of people. They use other people to get it such as employees and other peoples money such as banks or inherited wealth. Inequality will always be because individuals either don't want to be wealthy or don't know what to do to become wealthy.

Really...living on a dollar a day is a state of mind? how do you obtain wealth on a dollar a day? work twice as long and get 2 dollars? considering that 99% of people want wealth we have to assume that at least 90% of them have no idea how to achieve it...based on your thinking.

Poverty isn't a choice and its certainly not a state of mind...well not in the third world anyway.

 

[craft]

agreed, if you take away the incentive to be wealthy, there is a lot of great developments that wouldn't have gotten done. In recent times look at fortescue metals, an infrastructure project on a vast scale, without twiggy seeking fortune and making it happen, it would never have gotten done,

Say you made twiggy give up the entire fortune he has made and spread it throughout the global population, it would be less than $1 per person, and have zero affect on changing lives, but we would have cut the legs of a captain of industry with a track record of getting things done.

Who is talking about taking away the incentive to be wealthy?

It’s the extreme inequality that needs attention.

The wealth of the one precent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.

That’s a lot of cloth to cut before you would put the slightest dent in real incentives.

Besides, I suspect many of the wealthiest would prefer better equality and the social benefits it bring rather than more wealth – The system isn’t necessarily ideal for them either but perhaps they don’t know how to fix it either. Even Buffett hasn't been successful in lobbying for the superrich to pay more (equal) tax.

 

[Wysiwyg]

i reckon Australia's tax system is about right, we just need to not waste so much of the tax we earn

Interestingly when we sign up to the "system" we agree to support people who we do not know. We agree to take responsibility for other peoples existence. This is good for the tribes existence but open to abuse as any government funded system is.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Poverty isn't a choice and its certainly not a state of mind...well not in the third world anyway.

I respectfully disagree and the reason is because poverty is in the "consciousness". The people breed their offspring into a place of lack. There is no fertile ground, there is no water, there is no education, there is no intelligence, there is no community structure, there is no thought of doing what it takes to break free. This is poverty consciousness handed down from generation to generation.

See the cause and not the effect!

 

[craft]

Nice distraction from religion Craft!

I wonder what it would take to form and get a party elected with the "gift economy" as thier platform? Interesting to contemplate it.

Hi Canoz

Ah Religion and politics two ways of organising society and I’m afraid I despair about them both.

It is the darkest before the dawn.

Perhaps that both of us on either side of the world know about a concept such as gift economies says something about the power and potential of social interaction of the internet. Who knows what can/will eventuate.

I'm optimistic that humanity can do it better.

 

[So_Cynical]

I respectfully disagree and the reason is because poverty is in the "consciousness". The people breed their offspring into a place of lack. There is no fertile ground, there is no water, there is no education, there is no intelligence, there is no community structure, there is no thought of doing what it takes to break free. This is poverty consciousness handed down from generation to generation.

See the cause and not the effect!

No

There is community in the third world, very strong community's..its how they survive extreme poverty, when good fortune smiles on one or a small group it is shared around, and expected to be...fertile ground is managed and worked, water a vital resource, intelligence is local and based on living to see tomorrow.

With respect: Anyone who spends more than 5 minutes close up and personal in the third world knows that...community is a vital part of staying alive, poverty is what they are trying to overcome and that's not easy when everyone is poor...the **** i have seen people do for a couple of dollars is amazing.

 

[coolcup]

Hundreds of years ago the type of skew in wealth that is being discussed was "institutionalised" in a sense. Monarchs and peasants, that sort of thing. Power and riches belonged to a few who directly ruled over the rest of the masses which basically starved or were close to starving. This balance remained acceptable for every hundred or so years until the peasants had enough and rose up to chop off some heads of the ruling class... only for another ruling class to emerge - rinse and repeat...

So at some point, we morphed into democracies where the masses elected the government of the day and had the right to kick them out every now and again. This meant a lot less head chopping and, theoretically, a lot less starving. The problem in a lot of developed countries is that the governments are basically controlled by the "new kings", the billionaires who own the media outlets, the major employers in the economy etc which shape so much of what the masses do and how they think. These billionaires are the new kings with the rest the peasants. The clever part, as has been pointed out, is that the peasants are not starving any more and where there is starvation the media shows the promise of democratisation and the "benefits" that come with, which keeps the peasants from rising up - therefore the kings have managed to maintain power while not having their heads lopped off through an unspoken social agreement with their followers.

Perhaps, over such a long period of time, this is just the way mass human populations behave. The majority as followers with a few leaders who enjoy concentrated power and resources??

I feel like I am rambling now. I offer no solutions, and can't really think of anything better than "democracy" as a concept. Not that we execute it that well anyway...

 

[Value Collector]

Who is talking about taking away the incentive to be wealthy?
.

I thought that you were some how suggesting it was immoral that a person could amass large amounts of personal fortune when there are others in the world living in poverty.

I just don't think bringing in penalty rates of taxation would solve the problem, i think we have to grow the global economy to include them.

I mean until the third world has infrastructure, such as roads, power, water, telecommunications etc they will be in poverty, it will take many years but it will only be solved by growth.

If your talking about poverty in the developed world sense, eg. A single mum on the welfare, i dont think that is that hard to escape from.

 

[robusta]

There is no doubt that the world has enough resources, capital and technology to give the opportunity of the basic necessities (clean water, food and shelter) to everyone. Corruption, greed and indifference seem to be the main reason's these resources don't flow to those in need.

Now here comes the uncomfortable questions.

Would first world countries willingly vote for a lower living standard to raise the living standards of people they haven't met?

Would there ever be the political and logistical will to ensure that resources would be allocated to those in need?

I wish the answers to those questions were different.

 

[coolcup]

Now here comes the uncomfortable questions.

Would first world countries willingly vote for a lower living standard to raise the living standards of people they haven't met?

Would there ever be the political and logistical will to ensure that resources would be allocated to those in need?

I wish the answers to those questions were different.

Great points. The fact we are willing to buy $8 t-shirts from Kmart and be surprised when a factory in Bangladesh that produces them burns down is case in point.

 

[Value Collector]

Now here comes the uncomfortable questions.

Would first world countries willingly vote for a lower living standard to raise the living standards of people they haven't met?

Would there ever be the political and logistical will to ensure that resources would be allocated to those in need?

I wish the answers to those questions were different.

I dont think we have to go without so they get some, if they had the infrastructure to include themselves in the game of economic production there would be more for everybody,

Its not a matter of allocating resources to them, its about enabling them to produce goods and services to trade with us.

Its a cliche, but i think the old adage of " Trade not Aid" is how you free people from poverty. Off course you give aid in the meantime though.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The clever part, as has been pointed out, is that the peasants are not starving any more and where there is starvation the media shows the promise of democratisation and the "benefits" that come with, which keeps the peasants from rising up - therefore the kings have managed to maintain power while not having their heads lopped off through an unspoken social agreement with their followers.

Uprisings by the people against their government is still happening around the world. Maybe the technological age and internet access has opened the minds of people to what is possible. Dare to dream a better standard of living in a democratic state.

 

[Wysiwyg]

There is no doubt that the world has enough resources, capital and technology to give the opportunity of the basic necessities (clean water, food and shelter) to everyone. Corruption, greed and indifference seem to be the main reason's these resources don't flow to those in need.

Imagine how polluted the planet would be if every one in the world had the standard of living in Australia. As the so called developing countries progress they are going to create a lot of waste just like our developed countries have. Extinct animals and plants, polluted waterways, heated atmosphere etc. and all part of the meaningless (in a logical sense) evolution of human beings.