The richest 400

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Please describe how and/or why they have done an injustice to you.

The concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands makes for a dysfunctional society.

Originally posted by rwingett
The concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands makes for a dysfunctional society.

yes it does, but that does not mean you have to buy into it, personally. No pun intended.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Ugh, more of this.

Just stop for a moment and look around you. Look at that thingy you're typing on. Look at the screen in front of you. Think of all the inventions, technology, labour and industry that it has taken so that you and I can have this discussion on this (fantastic) website. You know it hasn't always been like this, right?

Lots and lo ...[text shortened]... won because they would rather have the $14.95 than the cell phone. Who got ripped off?

What exactly is your argument here? In the country with the lowest income inequality (Denmark) everyone can afford a cellphone. There is plenty of innovation in Northern Europe, heck, Ericsson and Nokia are from Sweden and Finland respectively (though they are clearly less dominant than they used to be).

Originally posted by rwingett
The concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands makes for a dysfunctional society.

No, no, no, NO. NOT wealth -- power! Wealth is NOT power -- not in a democracy. In a democracy votes are power. That's why democracy and capitalism go together like peas and carrots. Even if I have zero dollars - I still have power -- exactly as many votes as Bill Gates.

THAT'S the secret. THAT's why you don't have to worry about zillionaires (in the US anyway; FMF's friends probably should worry more. But in a mature democracy NOBODY has to worry about billionares.)

When everyone has the vote (and justice is done regardless of the money spent -- even the US needs to work on this one; you listening no1m? ) -- power has been effectively dispersed.

It's the same sort of compromise made between large and small states over proportional representation -- in the House, population matters. In the Senate, it doesn't. When buying stuff, money matters. But when voting, it doesn't.

So at the end of the day, a lot of those extra dollars aren't useful for a whole lot except for buying ever-more-expensive yachts.

The rich may control 80% of the wealth -- but who cares? They don't have 80% of the friends, or eat 80% of the pizza and beer, or have 80% of the sex, or enjoy 80% of the entertainment.

You'll realize one day how little that "extra money" means.

Originally posted by rwingett
The concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands makes for a dysfunctional society.

Your Utopian society sounds wonderful. But where is the incentive to thrive? A person works hard, makes brilliant business decisions, makes a fortune, then the government takes it away a gives it to other citizens who are not hard workers, nor brilliant at business,etc.
The main problem w/you socialist is, you wont admit that the Billions of dollars a billionaire has is the fact that its HIS money! Its not the Governments, societies,or anybodies but HIS. In a free society you should have the right to do what you want with it. And not be compelled by the Government through the threat of force to give most of it away through excessive taxes.
A flat tax across the board is the only fair way to go.
Pick a number. 20,30,50% income tax no matter what you make, thats how much you pay in.

Originally posted by spruce112358
No, no, no, NO. NOT wealth -- power! Wealth is NOT power -- not in a democracy. In a democracy votes are power. That's why democracy and capitalism go together like peas and carrots. Even if I have zero dollars - I still have power -- exactly as many votes as Bill Gates.

THAT'S the secret. THAT's why you don't have to worry about zillionaires (in the ...[text shortened]... f the entertainment.

You'll realize one day how little that "extra money" means.

You're a deluded fool if you think you have the same power as Bill Gates. I find it difficult to believe that any thinking adult would make such a ridiculous statement. Even though you each have one vote at the ballot box, Bill Gates' power eclipses yours. And mine. Money runs the show, regardless of your vapid excursions into Civic 101.

Originally posted by rwingett
You're a deluded fool if you think you have the same power as Bill Gates. I find it difficult to believe that any thinking adult would make such a ridiculous statement. Even though you each have one vote at the ballot box, Bill Gates' power eclipses yours. And mine. Money runs the show, regardless of your vapid excursions into Civic 101.

You will one day understand what I am talking about.

Just don't be so arrogant to imagine that today, you in your little brain have "just the thing" to sweep away a system that is the pinnacle of thousands of years of evolution.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Look, don't put words in my mouth.

I did not make the argument (or assumption) that "people would never invent anything if they didn't have the chance to become a billionaire." Nor did I allege that "capitalism is the only way to spur innovation." (The Linux operating system, and the documentation that supports it, are fine examples that would disput of being a member. Please describe how and/or why they have done an injustice to you.

There is a finite amount of some kinds of wealth. Land, for example.

Originally posted by spruce112358
You will one day understand what I am talking about.

Just don't be so arrogant to imagine that today, you in your little brain have "just the thing" to sweep away a system that is the pinnacle of thousands of years of evolution.

The pinnacle of a thousand years of evolution? That would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

Originally posted by rwingett
The richest 400 Americans have a greater combined wealth than the bottom 50% of the country. Depending on what statistics you use, the top 400 Americans have a net worth of $1.27 trillion compared to a net worth of $1.22 trillion for the bottom 155 million Americans. Does anyone really think that 400 individuals having roughly the same net worth as the bott ...[text shortened]... consin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/

The result of unchecked capitalism. One day one person will own everything in the world and everyone else will be bankrupt - or is that 'Monopoly' I'm thinking of...

Originally posted by divegeester
The result of unchecked capitalism. One day one person will own everything in the world and everyone else will be bankrupt - or is that 'Monopoly' I'm thinking of...

Unregulated capitalism inevitably moves toward greater and greater disparities in wealth. We are seeing that in action now. As the last of the regulations put in place after the Great Depression are being dismantled, we are seeing levels of inequality not seen since before then. The rich are becoming obscenely rich at the expense of the rest of society. What is unbelievable is that the rich have somehow convinced a large segment of society that these huge inequalities are for their own good, and that somehow it will mysteriously result in a net benefit to society. So we have the bizarre spectacle of middle class workers cheering for the supposed right of the rich to bleed middle class workers dry.

Originally posted by rwingett
Unregulated capitalism inevitably moves toward greater and greater disparities in wealth. We are seeing that in action now. As the last of the regulations put in place after the Great Depression are being dismantled, we are seeing levels of inequality not seen since before then. The rich are becoming obscenely rich at the expense of the rest of society. Wha ...[text shortened]... dle class workers cheering for the supposed right of the rich to bleed middle class workers dry.

Interestingly, agent-based models also predict very large wealth differences, even with a few simple rules.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Interestingly, agent-based models also predict very large wealth differences, even with a few simple rules.

Meaning?

Originally posted by rwingett
Meaning?

What it could mean is that very large income differences are an emergent property of a capitalist system. Furthermore, large income differences also undermine the efficient functioning of the market, at least from a utilitarian perspective. So a well-functioning capitalist system has a government which steps in to reduce income differences, while at the same time benefiting from the specialization that is enabled by capitalism.

Originally posted by rwingett
Meaning?

Not my words, but pertinent I think:

"Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished for ever. Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits."