Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-got-mine!-And-Yours.-And-Yours.-Annnnnd-yours,-too. dept.

The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017

More than $8 of every $10 of wealth created last year went to the richest 1%.

That's according to a new report from Oxfam International, which estimates that the bottom 50% of the world's population saw no increase in wealth.

Oxfam says the trend shows that the global economy is skewed in favor of the rich, rewarding wealth instead of work.

"The billionaire boom is not a sign of a thriving economy but a symptom of a failing economic system," said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday January 27 2018, @02:29PM (12 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday January 27 2018, @02:29PM (#628866) Journal

    Give us thy wisdom upon how Capitalism is evil and Communism shall save humanity! Never mind that the exact opposite has been shown to be the case every single time throughout history!

    First, the history of capitalism is only a few centuries, and the history of communism is less, so I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn.

    Second, and more importantly, you're making a false dichotomy here. There are lots of ways of organizing economies and government other than "pure" capitalism (whatever that is) vs. "pure" communism.

    Preach unto us how we deserve the fruits of someone else's labor that we may beat and kick them righteously before taking said fruits for ourselves!

    Okay, I'll bite. I'm NOT arguing for communism at all. But there is are plenty of arguments for why your overly simplistic model is unfair.

    One common argument is that we're all dependent on each other in society. The rich don't get rich by themselves -- they depend on the rest of society to finance them. So the "fruits of someone else's labor" can only exist as long as the overall society exists. Society therefore has the right to place at least some limits on how those "fruits" may be earned.

    It's widely recognized (except perhaps by hard-core communists) that concentration of wealth has positive benefits, and I'm not at all going to argue against that. The ability to earn more through hard work or innovation or whatever drives people to excel, often in ways that benefit society as a whole. But that's not an argument for unfettered wealth concentration in a small elite. Eventually, if you go down that road, you go beyond capitalism and are preaching the gospel of feudalism, which tends toward a belief that a certain elite just "deserve" to be richer. And feudalism, historically, tended to limit social and technological progress.

    Instead, we should realize that the rich don't just "deserve" those "fruits of their labor" (especially when said "labor" may be spending out of a trust fund that earns interest) -- but rather we should keep in mind that the wealth inequality should be justified to better society. Like, as I said, to provide incentives for innovations: innovations that often benefit society as a whole (often including the poor).

    So how do we strike the balance to provide such incentives without driving toward a feudalism of the rich "deserving" a priori to be richer for no better reason than that they can be?

    One answer (not the only one) is provided by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice [wikipedia.org]. Rawls points out that you are often born into a society with certain talents and abilities, and if you were born into a different society with different values, you might become significantly richer or poorer.

    So imagine you were entering into a new society, and you didn't know if your talents and abilities would actually be valued? Maybe in this society you'd end up being the poorest member because they value something you're just not very good at. How would you design the economic system to ensure that wealth distribution benefits all? What would be fair to you as the poorest member of that society?

    Rawls's answer is sort of what I implied above: we allow the rich to get richer as long as the inequality continues to benefit society as a whole. But at some point, the scales are tipped and the rich merely continue to just get richer, while the quality of the life of the poor remains static or even degrades.

    We can look at the recent history of business to see this. Keynes predicted almost a century ago that by now we'd all be working only 15 hour work weeks, because our productivity would have gone up so much. Except this didn't happen. Well, the productivity did increase as Keynes predicted, but the benefits of that increased productivity and all the profits only went to the richest. Executive salaries have ballooned compared to the average worker salary. The inequality is no longer benefitting everyone, rather only a tiny elite. And we have actual studies that show that increased CEO pay doesn't correlate well with increased company performance -- or even if it does, the effect is so, so much smaller than would justify having a salary hundreds of times higher than the average worker.

    So, by Rawls's standard, the system is breaking down. The richer are getting richer, but their gains are not increasing overall quality of life for society as a whole. Rather, they're just allowing the rich to buy a slightly bigger private jet or whatever.

    On a global scale (as TFA is addressing), there's not much to be done. We don't have a world government or a world economic policy strong enough to address this on a global scale. But the same patterns of wealth concentration without overall societal benefit apply in a lot of countries.

    Again, imagine you were to move to a country like the U.S., for example, but you had no idea if your talents or intellectual abilities would be as valued as they are now. Maybe you'd be the dumbest person in this country, struggling to survive. (And, since most people are just born into a country, they don't have control over whether their innate aptitudes are high or low within that society -- sure, they can shape them to some extent, but some people are just dumber than others or have different abilities... or do you deny that?) How would you design the economic system or the tax system or whatever? In the name of fairness, wouldn't you choose some metric kind of like what Rawls suggests? I.e., Reward the rich and allow them to get richer, but only as long as the concentration of wealth doesn't begin to degrade the quality of life of the average or poor worker??

    It's not just capitalism vs. communism. Or unfettered wealth accumulation vs. complete wealth redistribution. There are issues of general fairness of society to consider, as well as what economic system promotes the strongest progress (technologically, quality of life, etc.) for ALL members of said society.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:17PM (11 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:17PM (#628889) Homepage Journal

    The rich don't get rich by themselves -- they depend on the rest of society to finance them.

    Why haven't you done so then? Oh, right, because you're full of shit.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:02PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:02PM (#628914)

      Oh wow. Your powers of reasoning leave us all shocked and awed.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:24PM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:24PM (#628929) Homepage Journal

        Your utter lack of a rebuttal speaks volumes.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:50PM (#629078)

          When someone makes a terrible point full of bad logic it is rarely fruitful to argue the point. Especially with someone like you who ignores everything they don't like with simple denials. Your rebuttals never have any evidence or even decent reasoning beyond "taxes are theft" and other greed based axioms.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:50PM (#629079)

          The Obvious RebuttalĀ®. Oh Buzzard of Might, is that there is no way to rebutt the lack of rebuttal. Your lack reasoning makes you irrefutable! No one can refudiate you! Go, Sarah!

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mmcmonster on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:17PM (4 children)

      by mmcmonster (401) on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:17PM (#628968)

      I am, by most scales, well to do, if not considered rich.

      I have a high-six-figure salary in the health care field, with respect from my colleagues who acknowledge behind my back that I'm a hard worker and good at what I do. I have $2.5 million in liquid assets, have a million dollar house (custom build, not a McMansion), and my entire debt is $30k on my car (at 1.2%, I'm taking as long as possible to pay it off). I have never taken a loan from family or even accepted cash from them (other than $100 at times as birthday gifts).

      That being said, I would never say that I am a self-made man. My parents gave me a stable home growing up, driving me to and from extracurricular activities on nights and weekends as needed.. They supported me throughout school, such that I never had to pay tuition or work during high school or college.

      I am a member of society and quite happy to pay whatever taxes requested to keep society going for the next generation. I volunteer on off weekends and make sure my kids do as well (when we are not taking them to their extracurricular activities).

      By the time my kids are old enough to be earning a living they are going to be better off than most and have a leg up on society. They won't have loans and will understand index fund investing and living below their means.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:36PM (2 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:36PM (#628987) Homepage Journal

        And I applaud you for all that. I would however call you a self-made man. You owe your parents nothing financially or morally for your raising. The choice to bring you into this world was theirs thus so was the responsibility to raise you. There are usually going to be plenty of mutual debts of love and loyalty for them and you exchanging plenty of both but those don't really factor in here.

        Any contributions you care to make to create a better world for your children or even simply posterity I applaud you for as well. Demanding others do so as well under threat of imprisonment or death I cannot back you on though. I know of no way to make that a morally sound position.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:54PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:54PM (#629082)

          I know of no way to make that a morally sound position.

          By now we all get that, Uzzard. But you do understand, do you not, that what you do not know is not exactly relevant to anything at all. Community College, bro! The only cure for ignorance is learning. Money is not an acceptable substitute.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:37PM (#629127)

            what you do not know is not exactly relevant to anything at all.

            The only cure for ignorance is learning.

            You obviously have quite the journey ahead of you then.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:59PM (#628999)

        Great. There are two schools of thought here, first that your parents funding your education is unfair, second that it is fair because opportunity is cross generational and every parent has the opportunity and responsibility to provide for their children. I believe the second to be true, my parents were not wealthy but provided for my education although I insisted on taking a bar job. We lived in a lower middle class area where I grew up exposed to vicious reverse snobbery, supporting myself became a matter of personal pride and self respect. On reflection it's only important that you make the most of available opportunities.

        I've known many supposedly "self-made" people who would never admit their finances are a result of inheritance and many supposed inheritance beneficiaries who are, in reality, self-made. Success in most fields requires the work be put in.

    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:20PM (1 child)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:20PM (#629176) Journal

      Wow. Okay, then. I've often disagreed with you, and sometimes you've been less than articulate in replies to me. And sometimes a bit of a jerk. But you've never downright been an an inarticulate ass AND jerk to me when I've offered a substantive reply to you.

      You have just proven yourself to be a true troll, not deserving of my time anymore. I've occasionally enjoyed debating with you, but if you're going to act like this, I won't bother talking to you anymore.

          It's been weird, Mr. Buzzard. Farewell and cheers!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:00AM (#629251)

        Another user finally sees the truth!