The world's richest families' staggering wealth

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Scotty! Beam me up...

What did Scotty find in the Captain's toilet?

The Captain's Log.

a reply to: Puppylove

I am with you that the wealth disparity needs to be addressed

The disagreement I have with you is that capitalism sucks

I agree in a way

But it is far and away the best system we have ever had, despite its many flaws

It’s easy to miss with all the gloom and doom

But thanks to free markets and personal property rights and the incentives they provide, the past few decades have seen the amount of people in crippling poverty in the world cut in half

That’s not to say we shouldn’t work to improve our system

But we should focus on the good along with the bad

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Puppylove

Doesn't matter how hard someone worked

This is exactly what is wrong with people today!

No amount of work can allow you to own the world. That's the problem with people like you. You think that just because someone works hard, and can figure out how to work the system for their benefit, the world is owed to them.

a reply to: Grambler

Capitalism doesn't suck any more or less than socialism. The second you both come to terms with your systems failures and the others successes and stop saluting your side like some kind of savior, and treating the other as the antichrist the better.

My issue isn't capitalism or socialism, it's both.

What is greedy and what is poverty can never be agreed upon. Bernie can say Trump is greedy but one could also say Bernie is greedy for owning 3 homes. Meanwhile Warren Buffet is worth more than both of them combined but lives a modest lifestyle. So who is more greedy. It's a subjective thing. One could base it off of money or, they could base it off possessions. Someone could be worth less than all of them and own 10 homes and 5 cars.

Same goes for poverty. Bernie talks about the 1% but globally, he is part of the global 1% he complains about. There is no measuring stick with these terms. It's all subjective. If one thinks greedy is having 100K in cash in the bank then that is their definition. If one thinks poverty is having to ride a bike to work that is their definition. They may struggle with that definition though if they learn the biker on the same path is a millionaire and chooses to bike to work.

a reply to: Puppylove

If capatilism sucks so bad, how do you explain those in crippling poverty being halved in the last two decades?

What system do you have that would do better?

Communism completely erases greed and inequality.....

originally posted by: Lysergic
Communism completely erases greed and inequality.....

Then how is Kim Jon Un so fat and his people skin and bones?

a reply to: JAGStorm

Its a glandular problem, you fat shamer.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Because he is an elite...

Socialism/Communism is shared misery.... except for the elites. The elites never subject themselves to their proposed utopias.

originally posted by: contextual
Can't really complain if you keep voting in capitalist governments.

I suppose you could live in a country where everyone is as poor as sh1t. Except in none "capitalist governments" you will find the leaders wallowing in the filth of excess and greed. Typically, poor countries are ruled by people who get rich out of it.

The fact is that in the West at least, through luck, charm and risk some people get very rich. In doing so, they often create the environment for others to thrive. As stated above, many rich people are philanthropists and do good with their riches. It's not all bad.

In countries outside of the West the very rich have got there through exploitative and extractive institutions. They benefit no one but themselves.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: JAGStorm

Doesn't matter how hard someone worked, nor does it matter where they started from. There's an upper limit to what anyone should be allowed, regardless. Is not like these people saved humanity from extinction.

My problem isn't wealth. It's excess. People should have an incentive to succeed. That does not require the possibility of infinite wealth at everyone else's expense.

Follow your beliefs far enough, you'd find it acceptable if someone could find a way to acquire all wealth, and own, all land, and pretty much turn the rest of the world into dependent slaves that exist for no other purpose than to serve their needs, because they found a way to legally acquire such wealth and deeds. Especially if the person who did this started off poor.

Why should there be an upper limit? Who determines that limit? Again, you neglect that most of these fortunes are voluntarily given away.

a reply to: Grambler

That's not capitalism that's the advancement of sciences which will eventually make capitalism obsolete in it's current state if it ever allows for it. The desire to keep everyone working for their bread and butter will become a problem once technology makes the need for most workers obsolete.

The reason people are living better isn't because of capitalism. It's because tech has made life simpler and require less man power for simplest of things. Take right now. We're discussing from who knows how far away instantaneously.

a reply to: Puppylove

Couldn't one argue that capitalism is the motivation behind tech development?
And when a worker becomes obsolete, who is going to take care of them?
I don't see a point where everything will ever just be free to all.

a reply to: Puppylove

How did the sciences advance?

Wasn’t their an incentive for individuals to research and create those technologies?

a reply to: Edumakated

Because we don't want a planet consisting of one human. Your philosophy taken to extremes means it's just fine if the whole planet and all it's resources belonged to one person. Your philosophy is absurd. There has to be an upper limit or people will eventually be forced to make one for you.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Puppylove

How did the sciences advance?

Wasn’t their an incentive for individuals to research and create those technologies?

Science advances because greed is what ultimately drives innovation. VCs seek out new ideas/tech for investment because of the potential returns. This allows scientist/inventors to make things that benefit society.

Sure, some inventors/scientist often do things out of curiousity, but it is the behind the scenes capitalist that are able to bring these ideas to market.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

Because we don't want a planet consisting of one human. Your philosophy taken to extremes means it's just fine if the whole planet and all it's resources belonged to one person. Your philosophy is absurd. There has to be an upper limit or people will eventually be forced to make one for you.

Your entire premise is absurd...

Planet consisting of one human? Are freaking serious? Do you even think about what you are saying before you type? Every now and then you make a decent post, but good god man.... you need some counseling sometimes.

I see lots of capitalist myths here. The self made man. The wealthy philanthropist. Cute.

Thing is, capital is a finite resource, like water or anything else. And money in the hands of the market, as in being paid, spent, etc is economic activity. However trillions in the hands of few are completely removed from the economy, either sitting as “investments” in real estate, or the 5 trillion sitting in offshore accounts. This is tantamount to someone accumulating the vast majority of the water, for instance, and instead of using it just socking it away while others are dying of thirst. If that money was taxed and used for economic activities such as govt building projects, infrastructure, services etc it would add to the economy. Sitting there growing it’s subtracting from it instead.

As to philanthropy..... f that. If they would just pay their taxes rather than dodging, we wouldn’t need any of their philanthropy. Instead they pay far less in philanthropy than I pay in taxes, and they get celebrated for it..... along with a tax break. That’s not philanthropy. It’s marketing, pr, and self aggrandizement. About 50% of my money goes to taxes, 50% of theirs should too. Taxes should be levied on surplus income, rather than taken from needed funds. I, and most people I know, choose between going to the doc or getting clothes, etc. That’s not an issue with the wealthy elite, and yet I pay a much higher percent of my income than they do. And that’s just income! That’s not even wealth, which is a far higher disparity.

Look, there's nothing wrong with a few people having more money than everyone else put together. Even if one individual had all the world's wealth and the other 7 billion couldn't scrape together a daily meal, then they just should have worked harder or gotten rid of whatever inherent character flaw is causing them to starve. In this society, you are solely responsible for your circumstances. If you're born into poverty with terrible parents and a learning disorder, that's on you. Should have chosen better genes and life situation.