Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Duggys Housemate

Channel Zero wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Nice vid. Saw it before actually, being a big fan of Hans Rosling. Unfortunately it doesn't link it to the system that's been in place over the last 30 years.

It's quite obvoius that mankind has improved its lot over the last 200 years as Rosling beautifully illuminated in his bubble graph thingy.

To be honest though, that reply stinks of libertarian apologetics. The last 200 years progress has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, am sure you'll agree. It's giving credit where credit isn't due.

Am looking forward to you providing something a bit more substantial than a 4 minute vid as to why our current system has been such a benefit to the state of affairs.

The actual video I was looking for was in fact a TED talk by him on the developing world in the last 30 years. Ill get that ( btw you dont get to decry the stats of a serious statistician by describing it as just a mere video - of what ever length. its cleary substantive)

And I am no libertarian, in fact I take them on in the economics section, mostly on my own. Pop in sometime.

I'll get that video tomorrow but it should be obvious that with china alone growing at 10% a year, in itself has rescued huge amounts of the world from poverty, that growth is enough to double GDP every 7 years.

Also world growth, averaging 4%, is higher than the growth in Europe from 1850-1950. Doubling every 15 years, most in developed countries.

The system which is achieving this is mostly State Capitalism for want of a better word or 2, manufacturing heavy, leaving the West with the financials and services. For now.

This is orthogonal to the existence and power of the super rich, I was correcting you on a point of fact.

Channel Zero

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The actual video I was looking for was in fact a TED talk by him on the developing world in the last 30 years. Ill get that ( btw you dont get to decry the stats of a serious statistician by describing it as just a mere video - of what ever length. its cleary substantive)

Ok, hopefully you find that. Videos are not substantive though in fairness. I'm not decrying Rosling, "serious statitician" that he is. I'm decrying the use of a 4 minute 200 year time-lapse video to make your point.

Am not asking you to do a hard thing here. Just to provide stats, real stats, that back up your point that "the developing world has, in fact, made great strides in the last 30 years." And more to the point: link it to the current system of globalisation, which your reply seemed to be rebutting.

And I am no libertarian, in fact I take them on in the economics section, mostly on my own. Pop in sometime.

I gathered you're not a libertarian. Just thought your reply stank of their typical response thats all.
I mean you can ask them why child labour was abolished and they'll tell you "oh, it was because of free market forces".
Nothing about child labour laws of course. They didn't occur apparently. It was all to do with the invisible hand.

The same applies here. The developing world has made "great strides". Why is that though? Why did the East Asia countries do so well in the last 30 years for instance?
Was it because they embraced trade liberalisation whole-heartedly?
Actually no it wasn't from what i've read. On the contrary, the countries that enforced a measure of protectionism from trans-national capital flows fared better.
Other issues helped them too, so it's a case of giving credit where credit isn't due i'm afraid.

I'll get that video tomorrow but it should be obvious that with china alone growing at 10% a year, in itself has rescued huge amounts of the world from poverty, that growth is enough to double GDP every 7 years.

GDP is a very poor measure of human happiness though. GDP may well be growing at 10% per year in China. I'm not of the opinion though that this warrants proclaiming it "rescued huge amounts of the world from poverty".
A bit of an overstatement there imo.

Also world growth, averaging 4%, is higher than the growth in Europe from 1850-1950. Doubling every 15 years, most in developed countries.

Source please. Growth in what? Trade or income?

The system which is achieving this is mostly State Capitalism for want of a better word or 2, manufacturing heavy, leaving the West with the financials and services. For now.

This is orthogonal to the existence and power of the super rich, I was correcting you on a point of fact.

Haven't a clue what you meant here. Especially the orthogonal bit.
Perhaps you could elaborate for a dunce like myself..

KyussBishop

Channel Zero wrote: »

Exactly. This two-tier system, as you said, it of course pervades not only local law, but also infests the world economic system. Rigged rules and Double Standards as Oxfam put it.



No idea either. Let's hope it's non-violent change.
It does seem when looking at the figures and reading about it, that there will come a breaking point eventually. Knowledge is power as they say.

The depressing fact that's worth bearing in mind though, is that so much of the world already lives in grinding poverty, under conditions of shocking inequality. Sprawling shanty towns and gated luxury mansions co-exist side by side in developing countries. And it's not improving by any acceptable rate imo.

We might well ask ourselves why hasn't social unrest on a tectonic scale not happened already in these countries?
The sad answer to that seems to be is that these people have been rendered virtually powerless by the current system that favours a small powerful elite to the detriment of the vast majority; the triumph over the last 30 years of transnational tax-avoiding capital over labour and basic human rights.

Ya interesting, I haven't much focused or read up on at all the state of developing countries, when it comes to poverty and inequality; it is interesting to wonder why there is not so much violent protest in many of those countries, as many are undoubtedly in a much worse off position than any developed country is likely to get, even despite the crisis.

Will check out that full Oxfam report there in detail, as looks a good place to start


I guess for a lot of these countries (China, India and many African nations being some examples), there has been either a history of war and potential conflict, or authoritarianism that has kept violence suppressed.

The danger in these countries I would imagine, is that while they (many of them) are improving and becoming more wealthy, it's where they develop asynchronously with some groups getting extremely wealthy, with most of the population remaining poor, that there's a risk of violence; I think a countries elite can get away with that to a certain extent, so long as the less well off see some progress.

I think as Internet use becomes more cheap and ubiquitous, people are going to become much more readily informed and active on these issues (played a huge part in Arab Spring uprisings), heightening the likelihood of protest and violence; for this, the elite in those countries will depend upon keeping very tight control on the internet.


Here's all of Hans Rosling's TED stuff btw; not looked at any of them, though do remember that video earlier:
http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html

Duggys Housemate

I am not sure what you want explained. When I talk about growth it is GDP growth, if that exceeds population growth then GDP per capita increases and that tends to increase life expectancy etc.

State capitalism is capitalism with far more State intervention than neo-liberalism would support, the West was like this once. I don't just mean the state as re-distributor of wealth but as owner of significant capital and economic resources. This is orthogonal - I.e. unrelated - to the debate at hand. Which is what to do with the Super Rich, so although I will find that video I won't comment anymore on this side issue.

golden lane

if all this money went to the various states.....would it not cause hyperinflation......

and be wiped out in a short time....???

poeticseraphim

Denerick wrote: »

This is what terrifies me above all else. The French revolution witnessed the elemental fury of mankind at his most base. But then, so does all war. But the French Revolution was particularly ferocious and hysterical in its reliance on violence. And it ultimately led to a proto fascist dictator who basically conquered Europe.

I think libertarians and the super wealthy need to realise that social democracy, egalatarianism and wealth redistribution is as much in their interests as it is in the people's. What do they want? A new form of communism? Its the unremitting stupidity of it that agitates me so. No socially conscious group of people will abide ostentatious wealth in a period of mass hardship or stagnation.

There will never be another revolution like French revolution.

The imbalances between the defences of the professional military and the common man or paramilitaries is much greater now. The closest we ever get to revolutions are riots and the French still have them. It is young men armed with bats against police or the army armed with tanks, helicopters, guns helicopters etc. Think Tienamen square.

Countries build up their military and forget that they too may suffer military supression.

Personnally i don't doubt that if there were an uprising authorities regardless of country have no issues with massacring their own people. Northern Ireland, America wherever ....the authorities have no problem declaring martial law and defending capitalism with brutality.


Don't think they would not hesitate to massacre their own people.

And people are out matched..with the exceptions of terrorism and incidences like 911 which only go to show that the authorities are invincible you can only kill innocent people and watch as the authorities then move to oppress more innocents in revenge.

Revolution is dead.... libertarianism is dead....free trade in reality is an oxymoron ...trade is never done freely thats the point of it..the free market is dead.........

They never sought to end oppression merely artificial oppression

The economy is parasitic at both ends the rich and the poor....the poor through no fault of their own...but if a parasite can't keep it's host alive it dies also.

The super-rich have f**ked themselves .....


Libertarian nonsense ..it's dead .. it is enemy of capitalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYBOZMj1h_c

They have created a system that is so corrupt it endangers even them.

Libertarian countries such as the US which has shrunken it's govt over the last century has declined and China with huge Govt and state capitalism has grown.....


It is a huge fallacy to think that regulation hampers trade or holds it back....or that big Govt holds capitalism back....it does not China hasproven this.....

Donald Trump had this to say about China' when you have one chinese in the room you have all the Chinese in the room' and 'They are using their currency to cheat'...for the first time Americans found their national and even multi-national companies getting clobbered simply because China acts as one.

There is a new shift of power from west to east
..they are investing huge amounts on a federal level in....CHINA...green energy ....they are out investing the US in green energy and trying to save water....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzHRCuT5eDQ

China has MUCH more restrictive business regulation than the US and you know the only really true libertarian state...Somalia....True Story .....

The power in the world is about to shift to an area in the world where Govt is everything ...and it's got two heads corporation and govt ..money and military...the west can't fight ...govt is separate from multinationals ..the chinese govt is much better able to defend it's interests..


The rich ...super rich ...they are subordinate to the govt there still..how long that continues who nows...not that it helps normal people ..living standards are still not as high as the west..

I wonder what effect the climate and enviromental issues will have over the comming years and natural disasters....mortality is a great leveller.

Denerick

I disagree with the above comment, revolution is still possible in the current order. If the western world go three days without a solid meal you will see the collapse of the entire social contract. In reality, the bonds of civilisation are only ever tenuous at best. Many middle eastern dictatorships have stronger militaries relative to their population than most European democracies. Yet look at Syria today. All it takes for an insurgency to happen is a few defections. Time takes care of everything else. Revolution is always possible.

But I fear a French style revolution because the violence that is so essential to any revolution will bring chaos and misery, and most likely, a tyranny. Those who welcome revolution and the overthrow of the existing order spend little time thinking of what that actually means in practise. There is a lot that is perfectly fine about our modern system, so long as there is a welfare state with reasonable safeguards.

Jonny7

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Personnally i don't doubt that if there were an uprising authorities regardless of country have no issues with massacring their own people. Northern Ireland, America wherever ....the authorities have no problem declaring martial law and defending capitalism with brutality.

Don't think they would not hesitate to massacre their own people.

I presume you've seen the riots in Greece, the mass protests in Spain, the Occupy protests across the US, the summer riots in the UK..

I am curious as to which first world countries will "not hesitate to massacre their own people"?

Duggys Housemate

The real issue with taking on modern capitalism on the street is that - capitalism being diverse and hard to pin down, you end up taking on the State. Marxists, of course call the State irredeemably compromised by Corporate power, but it is nevertheless the state you will be fighting against. That's pointless. Anti-Monarchists used to take on the Monarchy, and having arrested them, kill them or banish them. Since the State is the solution, democratic politics not "revolution" is the answer.

Jonny7

Denerick wrote: »

But I fear a French style revolution because the violence that is so essential to any revolution will bring chaos and misery, and most likely, a tyranny.

Not essential, East Germany, the Velvet Revolution, the People's revolution in Philippines, Georgian revolution, the Orange Revolution and so on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

gozunda

Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Yes but only if we take on the runaway welfare society that uses up 90% of all taxation....

fairs fair....

Channel Zero

PoeticSeraphim: Am a huge fan of Thom Hartmann.

Anyway back on topic. Here is the voice of libertarian freedomland tax dodging think tank UK branch rubbish in all their glory:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/22/flat-taxes-taxpayers-alliance

maybe capital control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control
has something to do with the op.

Tombo2001

Denerick wrote: »

A major story has just emerged on guardian online - the size of the 'offshore' economy is roughly of the same magnitude as the GDP of the US and Japan combined. Since the global super rich effectively act and live like a parasite - extracting profits from developing countries and recycling those monies in offshore bank accounts and tax havens, contributing absolutely nothing to the social and cultural betterment of these nations - why do we allow them to get away with it? .

Parasites on developing countries? What are you talking about.

It is hardly breaking news that many wealthy people leave the country they live in and go to live in places like Switzerland or Monaco or Cayman so that they wont have to pay tax on their vast incomes. You dont have to read an article in the Guardian to know this. You only have to look at the annual reports of Swiss banks.

Look at the Irish who redomicle for tax reasons.....Michael Smurfit, Denis O'Brien, John Magnier, his horse racing buddy whose names escapes me....

Which of these are parasites on developing countries.

Of course its perfectly within their rights to do so. Just as its perfectly within Google or CocaCola's rights to locate their HQ in Ireland so they can avail of the cheap corporate tax rate.

Pot calls kettle black.

(Incidentally, whatever else you might say about Michael O'Leary, he stays at home and pays his taxes; he could very easily not do this. i would call it economic patriotism).

Icepick

So we take these assets and then what, give them to the the public service and welfare recipients?

Chuck Stone

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Since the State is the solution, democratic politics not "revolution" is the answer.

Democracy is problematic though because the super-rich hate democracy and are continuously subverting it by ploughing money into the election of people who will protect their privileges (Obama and Wall Street for example).

The billionaire Koch Brothers funding of the astro turf 'Tea Party' movement would be another example. The multi-billion dollar lobbying 'industry' is just a bribery racket.

I guess I should mention Public Sector unions too.

Jonny7

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Democracy is problematic though because the super-rich hate democracy and are continuously subverting it by ploughing money into the election of people who will protect their privileges (Obama and Wall Street for example).

So basically you are saying that the rich and powerful influence politics.. yet you are highlighting the system of democracy for this.. and Obama (who really isn't liked by American League of Lobbyists)

Chuck Stone

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's your work-around?

What?

Let's start with Norway shall we..

What?

You're not making much sense.

Jonny7

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What?

Try the edit.

Chuck Stone

Jonny7 wrote: »

So basically you are saying that the rich and powerful influence politics..

Yes. That's self-evident.

yet you are highlighting the system of democracy for this..

It's not clear what you're saying here. 'this' what?

and Obama (who really isn't liked by American League of Lobbyists)

I didn't say he was liked by them.

Jonny7

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes. That's self-evident.

Its a common problem that has transcended different systems down throughout the centuries, it's hardly inherent to democracy as such. The super-rich don't in fact "hate" democracy en masse, wee bit of a generalisation and over-simplification there.

We are experiencing a pretty severe double dip recession, so, unlike the heady days of early 2007, the "super-rich" are most definitely the new bogeymen, much like they were during the recession in the early eighties.

So unless there is a revolution or zombie apocalypse, the "super-rich" are always going to be around, whether they are parasitically sucking money out the system, indulging in philanthropy, or actually offering to pay higher taxes - they aren't going to go away, we just happily forget the issue when times are good.

I mentioned Norway, because as soon as the pitchforks come out, its always US examples, as if their bipolar system is representative of the system in general (which it certainly is not).

Chuck Stone

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its a common problem that has transcended different systems down throughout the centuries, it's hardly inherent to democracy as such. The super-rich don't in fact "hate" democracy en masse, wee bit of a generalisation and over-simplification there.

Okay maybe hate is a little ott but the democratic way is certainly managed as a threat.

We are experiencing a pretty severe double dip recession, so, unlike the heady days of early 2007, the "super-rich" are most definitely the new bogeymen, much like they were during the recession in the early eighties.

I didn't start the thread. If you have a problem with the content then perhaps you should take it up with the OP.

So unless there is a revolution or zombie apocalypse, the "super-rich" are always going to be around, whether they are parasitically sucking money out the system, indulging in philanthropy, or actually offering to pay higher taxes - they aren't going to go away, we just happily forget the issue when times are good.

I bolded the part which is the problem imo - the rest of what you said is stating the obvious.

I mentioned Norway, because as soon as the pitchforks come out, its always US examples, as if their bipolar system is representative of the system in general (which it certainly is not).

What pitchforks? We're talking about the super rich here, as per the thread title, and the US is the place that has the most super-rich people (from memory) so it follows that the US will come up for debate in a thread with a title such as this.

cgarrad

21 trillion is less than a quarter of one year of worlds economic output.

"They" have amassed 25% of one years output in the last 100 (of true capitalism).

Chasing 0.0025% seems pointless, case of can't see the woods for the trees.

Social welfare, health and public sector waste is the real crime.

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

21 trillion is less than a quarter of one year of worlds economic output.

"They" have amassed 25% of one years output in the last 100 (of true capitalism).

Chasing 0.0025% seems pointless, case of can't see the woods for the trees.

Social welfare, health and public sector waste is the real crime.

The issue isn't just their wealth but their power.

also that is an extraordinary percentage given the worlds population.

Canvasser

cgarrad wrote: »

21 trillion is less than a quarter of one year of worlds economic output.

"They" have amassed 25% of one years output in the last 100 (of true capitalism).

Chasing 0.0025% seems pointless, case of can't see the woods for the trees.

Social welfare, health and public sector waste is the real crime.

Sure 21 trillion in offshore accounts is nothing. What is everyone moaning about? In fact we should just stand back and let the richest 0.0025% in the world accumulate even more wealth while half the world's population live on less than $2 a day. Yer nothing but begrudgers the lot of ye! The super rich deserve their trillions and worked hard to earn all that (or at least other people worked hard to earn all that for them). Why should they be forced to pay taxes like everyone else?

cgarrad

Canvasser wrote: »

Sure 21 trillion in offshore accounts is nothing. What is everyone moaning about? In fact we should just stand back and let the richest 0.0025% in the world accumulate even more wealth while half the world's population live on less than $2 a day. Yer nothing but begrudgers the lot of ye! The super rich deserve their trillions and worked hard to earn all that (or at least other people worked hard to earn all that for them). Why should they be forced to pay taxes like everyone else?

0.0025% is the amount of wealth they have amassed, not the percentage of people that hold it.

Duggys Housemate

cgarrad wrote: »

0.0025% is the amount of wealth they have amassed, not the percentage of people that hold it.

It's the amount of wealth they are not declaring.

Canvasser

cgarrad wrote: »

0.0025% is the amount of wealth they have amassed, not the percentage of people that hold it.

Perhaps you could tell me how much wealth the poorest 50% of the world's population own combined?

Duggys Housemate

The top 1% own far more than 0.025% of income. That would make them poor. On average in a perfectly equal society you would expect any 1% to own 1%.

Everybody fell for a statistical trick here, including me; cgarrad decided to divide the 25% of world economic output undeclared per year by the rich by 100 as he decided that that was the age of capitalism..

If he decided capitalism was 200 years old they would own 0.0125%. Of course the real figures are 25% per year. Undeclared. Probably they earn 50%. Declare half of that.

cgarrad

Read this online today:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.00

The sixth would pay $3.00

The seventh would pay $7.00

The eighth would pay $12.00

The ninth would pay $18.00

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00

So that’s what they decided to do. The men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with arraignment, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers, he said, I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.00.

“Drinks for the ten men now cost just $80.00

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $ 20 windfall so that everyone would get there “fair share?” They realized that $ 20.00 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!

And so:

The fifth man like the first four, now paid nothing ( 100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of 12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid 14 instead of 18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before! And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20“ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right, shouted the seventh man. “why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in union. “ We didn’t I get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalist and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Jonny7

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The top 1% own far more than 0.025% of income. That would make them poor. On average in a perfectly equal society you would expect any 1% to own 1%.

Everybody fell for a statistical trick here, including me; cgarrad decided to divide the 25% of world economic output undeclared per year by the rich by 100 as he decided that that was the age of capitalism..

If he decided capitalism was 200 years old they would own 0.0125%. Of course the real figures are 25% per year. Undeclared. Probably they earn 50%. Declare half of that.

Yup odd stat. The top 1% will always own disproportionally more wealth, even under the strictest form of pure communism. The key is in the "top" part