American Wealth

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

American Wealth,

The super-rich (0.5 % of households), own 35% of the nation’s wealth.

The very rich (0.5% of households) own 7% of the nation’s wealth.

The rich (9% of households) own 30% of the nation’s wealth.

42% of the Forbes 400 list inherited wealth sufficient to place them on the list.

[i]Is this “fair”, “right”, “just”, “wise”, “productive”, “efficient”, “natural” or “healthy”?

Are these people, smarter, better, harder workers, blessed, luckier or superior?[/i]

Dunamis

2

Wealth tends to concentrate in the American economy because the leaders of profitable companies set their own salaries. Being human, most of them succumb to the temptations of wealth and maximize their own income rather than giving themselves an income and standard of living similar to a common employee’s. When this happens, the workers in a company are effectively doing surplus labor for the company head. Like kings, these company heads have near-absolute power over their companies and have every incentive to exercise that power to extract every penny from their workers. I’m not saying that bosses are bad or that they all necessarily do this, but the natural tendency of the system is in this direction.

People with the peculiar combination of characteristics necessary to lead a productive group like a company are probably relatively rare. I wonder if incentives like wealth and a high standard of living are necessary to attract these people to the positions of responsibility for which they are naturally equipped but may nevertheless find less preferable.

I would like to see a system developed where company head is not an inheritable, lifetime dictator position. The workers would periodically hold elections for their bosses. Such a system would resolve the management vs. workforce antagonism that leads to such unproductive behavior as strikes. It would increase the responsibility of everyone in the company to make the company work. It would reduce inequality because the elected leaders, while probably earning more as an incentive to take on the responsibility, would not earn a grossly disproportionate salary to the workers. And I think it just feels right that democracy should extend to some extent into all social groups, even companies.

3

I don’t think it’s about “fair”, “right”, “just”. Or “wise” for that matter. Unfortunately, given the near universal degree we see lopsided wealth distribution, I’d say you could make a good case that it’s “natural.” The world isn’t set up to be fair, unfortunately, either in nature or human society. Is it fair that the nicest guy gets cancer and the biggest asshole you’ve ever met lives a long healthy life and is never sick a day of it?

Still, I imagine there’ve been very few times in history that so much has been in the hands of so few. If you subscribe to the “social contract theory” of government, as I do, then you have to wonder if the contract is being met.

4

As for the first set,

I’ll skip the first 4 cause well… I’m lazy, but as for the bolded ones, here’s my two cents:

Productive/Efficient - Sure, maybe not moreso than communism or something, but the fact is… we’re getting things done, we make stuff… technology is going forward. It might be a production heading down the long road, but it’s one none the less.

Natural - Of course, we’re part of nature… anything we do is a natural phenomenon. Nature isn’t some stagnant concept… it changes, it’s alive. The US’s fucked up Capit- … their government and social structure is ‘unnatural’ when you compare it to past human nature, or even human nature from a specific area of the world. But the only things that are unnatural, happen on other planets.

Healthy - No, I don’t think so. Because the poor eat poorly, and are often malnurished, even if they are 400 lbs. Likewise, the rich are also unhealthy, as the job market today is so faced paced and stressful, that most barely find time to work inbetween eating their fast food, or popping some pill to help them ‘deal with it’. This of course excludes those so rich that they really don’t need to do anything… but that could be unhealthy in a way as well.

The second set,

Smarter - Yes, but i think this stems from their exposure to the economical side of the world. Raw intelligence is bountiful, but experience is not. If you’re from a family rich in entropaneurship and business politics, then you gain some valuable insights from your parents’ convos and stuff like that. I mean yes, the rich are the ones who can afford to put their kids through university… but if you really try hard enough, anyone can go to college… whereas not anyone can gain a specific type of experience.

Luckier - Most/Alot of the time, yes. Hollywood is a fine example. Fuck, I attribute whatever slightly unorthadox intelligence I have to almost pure luck.

Superior - Well… yeah.

5

There used to be an enpassioned ranter here named future man, who would tell you all about why America’s gini coefficient is so bad compared with many other developed nations. I believe he’s got it in for the rich. Although I’m not saying that he shouldn’t. Last week’s Economist tells the story of how the Bush family has managed to establish the son as one of the most powerful and wealthy president ever. What the poor needs to do is to either start revolting following the step of the second French revolution, or grin their way up the social ladder hiding their indignation. Let’s say that they succeed, both ways, then what will happen is going to disappoint you eventually. Everything will be just the fucking same. An iron fact that’s been historically proven in all ways by all accounts. What the rich is, either the king and his minister or the heir and descendent. Do not complain, the saint can be the saint becasue he’s guy without a mint, I give him a gold hill today, tommorow he’ll take off his sheep skin and change the part of the bible where it says “thou shalt not fuck” to “thou shalt not wank”. The rich justifies their richness by ruminating over the above, he tells himself that “if I give my money to you, then you’ll end up the same jerk as I, so there has to be a jerk anyway, then why should you be but not I”. The rich will get richer, when he gets too rich, he’ll be challenged, if he wins, he’ll have all, if he lose, the same shit will happen all over again to the poor challenger who won. This is the sine curve. This is the social function. This is the human way. You’ll need to walk it, unless you are Nietzsche crownded king.

6

I think we need to put some context here.
It is not about the wealth per se, but about what is
going around them that is important. If we lightly review history,
we know that the rich and powerful have always been with us,
and in some societies, such as the Romans have been extremely
rich compared to the average person in such a society.
I think we think about the societies which have collapse or
had revolutions, the wealthy in each case had privileges above
and beyond the average person. For example, in Rome the wealthy
did not pay taxes, that was left to the middle and poor class, which
were driven into bankruptcy and thus leading Rome to its fate.
The french revolution was driven by this same idea that the wealthy
autocratic class lived by a different sets of rules then the middle and
poor class. But in both the roman and french examples, the middle class
was fairly small, it was really more of a huge poor class and a very
small wealthy class. Let us look at a third example, the Russian
revolution, and we see more of the same. The best example here
is in the movie, “Dr. Zhivago” whereas the wealthy class had all the
privileges and the poor class had nothing. Now there are examples
of the wealthy being smart, the British aristocratic class.
They had wealth way beyond the average person, but they also
would throw the lower classes limited power sharing and
relief when the masses awoke. The British upper class had
sense enough to pass laws such as the corn laws of 1851?.
The Romans, French and Russian nobility would have said to the
poor “up yours”. Now so far the American wealth is following
the Roman example, whereas the wealthy class did use its wealth
to the benefit of the entire society, but since the reagan years,
1980 to now, wealthy has tried the late Roman and French trick,
of getting the benefits of society without paying for it. If the wealthy
don’t begin to step up and pay their fair share of taxes, in both
taxes, capital gains and in at death, the message sent to
the other classes is “up yours”. You have to pay, but we don’t.

My father in law, who is now deceased, was a CPA for
30 years and he once told me, that if you make a million
dollars a years and you are paying taxes, you are just being nice.
Because the laws are set up in such a way, that the wealthier you
are, the less taxes you have to pay. And don’t even start with
Corporations, who have basically abandon paying taxes in America.
If the rich aren’t paying and corporations aren’t paying taxes, then
who is? Well boys and girls, you are. You are picking up the slack for
the rich and corporations “welfare”. ( welfare as in getting tax breaks
for taxes not even being paid, thus they actually wind up not paying
any taxes at all. Hundreds of corporations pay no tax even though
they make billions of billions of dollars in profits, can any one say
oil companies) Given as this state of affairs cannot last long, this is
why I say the beginning of the end for America was the election
of raygun and bush lite is just continuing the work of the
dismantling America.

Kropotkin

7

US seems to overestimate it’s own wealth,
when i look at the rate at which it throws valuable resources out the window i’m getting the creeps

as for the topic, i happened to stumble upon this:

http://www.inequality.org/facts.html

8

The elite like Crassus. True enough, but today, at least in the West, the average person is generally better off than say a Roman emperor, or senator, that is there is an uneven distribution of wealth, but the wealth is generally spread about a bit more.

Hum, actually, Rome collected taxes/tributes from the lands they conquered.

“The expansion of the dole is an important reason for the rise of Roman taxes. In the earliest days of the Republic Rome’s taxes were quite modest, consisting mainly of a wealth tax on all forms of property, including land, houses, slaves, animals, money and personal effects. The basic rate was just .01 percent, although occasionally rising to .03 percent. It was assessed principally to pay the army during war. In fact, afterwards the tax was often rebated (Jones 1974: 161). It was levied directly on individuals, who were counted at periodic censuses.”

Kropotkin
[/quote]

You are on target. They argue that they create employment and wealth, which they indeed do.

At least they are cracking down on the corrupt corporation who swindle the investors and workers. Enron and Tycho were nailed big time.

If the government cracks down too hard, even more corporations will go overseas to avoid the taxes, and then more will be unemployed.

Hum, the government could not allow these overseas U.S. corporations any tax breaks, and this is being discussed…

How about a flat tax for all?

Just rambling is all and no nasty remarks please.

9
  1. The government which repealed the Corn Laws (not passed them, repealed them) in the 1840s was elected after the Great Reform Act of 1832 which gave the franchise to the middle classes. As such it was a triumph for the middle classes, not the aristocratic classes.
  2. The principle reason for repealing the corn laws was to help out the starving Irish, rearranging an absurd economic situation which saw a starving country exporting food because it made more economic sense. Not at all unlike Somalia in the 90s…

No offence PK but your knowledge and understanding of British history is dubious…

10

Aren’t you picking nits.

11

Peter Kropotkin: I think we need to put some context here.
It is not about the wealth per se, but about what is
going around them that is important. If we lightly review history,
we know that the rich and powerful have always been with us,
and in some societies, such as the Romans have been extremely
rich compared to the average person in such a society".

A: “The elite like Crassus. True enough, but today, at least in the West, the average person is generally better off than say a Roman emperor, or senator, that is there is an uneven distribution of wealth, but the wealth is generally spread about a bit more”.

PK: The poor is still the poor is still the poor.
You want to compare the poor in the west with the vast majority of
poor in the world who aren’t really much better off then they were
2000 years ago. The average poor african/Asian person who still doesn’t
have running water, electricity, living in a hovel with a very good
chance of getting AIDS. How does that compare with the average
Roman? Pretty much the same except with AIDS.

PK: I think we think about the societies which have collapse or
had revolutions, the wealthy in each case had privileges above
and beyond the average person. For example, in Rome the wealthy
did not pay taxes, that was left to the middle and poor class, which
were driven into bankruptcy and thus leading Rome to its fate.

A: Hum, actually, Rome collected taxes/tributes from the lands they conquered.
“The expansion of the dole is an important reason for the rise of Roman taxes. In the earliest days of the Republic Rome’s taxes were quite modest, consisting mainly of a wealth tax on all forms of property, including land, houses, slaves, animals, money and personal effects. The basic rate was just .01 percent, although occasionally rising to .03 percent. It was assessed principally to pay the army during war. In fact, afterwards the tax was often rebated (Jones 1974: 161). It was levied directly on individuals, who were counted at periodic censuses.”

PK: Still doesn’t change my point in which is the rich did not pay taxes.
By raping the other territories, all rome did was weaken them,
for the collapse.

PK: “Hundreds of corporations pay no tax even though
they make billions of billions of dollars in profits, can any one say
oil companies) Given as this state of affairs cannot last long, this is
why I say the beginning of the end for America was the election
of raygun and bush lite is just continuing the work of the
dismantling America.”"

A: You are on target. They argue that they create employment and wealth, which they indeed do.
At least they are cracking down on the corrupt corporation who swindle the investors and workers. Enron and Tycho were nailed big time.
If the government cracks down too hard, even more corporations will go overseas to avoid the taxes, and then more will be unemployed.
Hum, the government could not allow these overseas U.S. corporations any tax breaks, and this is being discussed…
How about a flat tax for all?

and no nasty remarks please.

PK: no nasty remarks? Jeez, you are no fun.
A flat tax is probably not politically feasible.
It would require businesses and powerful
individuals to give up precious perks like not paying
taxes at all. If they want to go overseas, I say let them,
put them into a foreign corporation bracket and tax the hell
out of them for doing business in the U.S.

Kropotkin

12

PK: “Now there are examples
of the wealthy being smart, the British aristocratic class.
They had wealth way beyond the average person, but they also
would throw the lower classes limited power sharing and
relief when the masses awoke. The British upper class had
sense enough to pass laws such as the corn laws of 1851?.”

Doorman: 1) The government which repealed the Corn Laws (not passed them, repealed them) in the 1840s was elected after the Great Reform Act of 1832 which gave the franchise to the middle classes. As such it was a triumph for the middle classes, not the aristocratic classes.
2) The principle reason for repealing the corn laws was to help out the starving Irish, rearranging an absurd economic situation which saw a starving country exporting food because it made more economic sense. Not at all unlike Somalia in the 90s…

PK: Your points is just proving my statements about how the
aristocratic classes gave reform to the LOWER classes in time to
prevent real unrest. The middle class is lower then the aristocratic
class. As to your second point about repealing the corn laws to help
out the Irish, I see that worked out real well. What was it 4 or 5 million
Irish people starved to death during the great famine. My own ancestors
came from Ireland (fathers side) during the migrations of those years.

D: No offence PK but your knowledge and understanding of British history is dubious…

PK: I know a hell of a lot more about British and Europen history
then you know about american history.

Kropotkin

13

Dear PK,

On the contrary, there was a period of civil unrest in the final decade of the 18th century and another throughout the 1820s (mainly attributed to the events across the channel at this time, though I’ve got my suspicions) thus demonstrating how the government, which was primarily aristocratic at the time, were slow to react.

Whatismore the 1830s and 40s saw the rise and fall of Chartism, the biggest movement to reform Parliament that this country has ever seen. Yet it was only in the 1920s when women finally got the vote that the demands of the Charter (bar one: equal electoral districts) became law. Nearly a century later…

I think that your one size fits all understanding of history is laughable.

Yes and no.

I never said that the policy was successful. Indeed I likened the situation to Somalia…

That is clearly untrue because everything that you’ve said is innaccurate. You thought that the Corn Laws were passed in 1851 when they were in fact repealed 5 years earlier. You claimed that this was to ward off civil unrest which it wasn’t. You claimed that this was a wise move by the aristocratic ruling classes when it wasn’t a wise move and the government of the time was a hybrid of aristocratic and middle class concerns.

You are wrong on every point. I mean no offence but I’m not just going to sit here and have you misrepresent the history of my country, just as if I claimed that America was formed on the notion of freedom I’d get Imp pointing out that women, west African slaves and the indigenous American peoples were all suppressed, oppressed or just slaughtered in the name of ‘freedom’…

It is ironic that you picked the Corn Laws because that period of British history (the 19th century, essentially) is one I studied at length. The possibility of you redeeming your position is basically nil, especially if I insist on historical accuracy, which I do.

14

This is being discussed as another tariff, similar to the many imports from other countries. Still, who will employ the U.S. citizens if all the businesses go overseas. Will we all end up waiting tables? Any ideas.

Many international conferences have been devoted to the elimination of poverty in the third world. Again, the problem is that the leaders steal from the people.

Look at Zimbabwe, the idiot had the Whites who had been there for centuries beaten and thrown off the land. Now they face starvation and even had the chutzpa to ask the Whites to return and show them how to farm, offered no compensation, etc. Now they scream racist as the Whites are LOL as they refuse.

aspacia

15

Hello F(r)iends,

I wouldn’t ascribe “fair”, “right”, “just”, or “wise” to inherited wealth. I would suggest it is natural because the passing on of property, in a way, is ensuring the survival of one’s lineage… I will add that just because it is natural does not mean that it is “fit”. So one could argue that the system is inefficient because through it we often reward the unproductive. I’m thinking Paris Hilton here {though I know not if she is amid these “elite”}.

-Thirst

16

What are the definitions for the super-rich, very rich, etc. in economic wealth? How many individuals do they employ? What benefits to they provide?

Also, say you work hard, create a great deal of wealth for yourself, and family, are you claiming that all your wealth should be given to the poor? Gates is probably the richest man in the world at the moment, and most of his wealth will be given to charity, but quite a bit will be left to his wife, if he predeceases her, and their children.

Are you arguing against capitalism? Are you arguing for communism or socialism. Even China is going capitalist, and most of Europe is rethinking socialism.

Just asking.

Smiles,

aspacia

17

In regards to the first question, I fall back to Heinlein’s Starships Troopers:

“Why do we have this system?.. Because it works”

In regards to the second, one cannot know without knowing them personally, but life tends to be the greatest of tests, and so they shall be judged by whethe or not they increase or decrease their wealth. If they decrease it, it would seem that they were incompetent and their wealth went to the competent. If they increase it, they were obviously the best suited to have it.

18

3 bonus points for anyone who can spot out more similiarities to The Republic from Starship Trooopers than I have.

19

Hum, Plato, at least if memory serves, and we live in a Platonic society. Heinlein was a bright guy, but well read and a suvivalist, and he did believe in the survival of the fittest, not the most adaptable.

Do not misunderstand, I probably have read every one of his stories, started in 8th grade with A Stranger in a Strange Land, ever wonder where the concept of water beds came from?? This book.

Hum, come to think of it, and SIATD will be glad this is a short 10 page essay, which I will edit down, regarding Stylistic Devices and Literature. The professor, a very liberal, secular Jew, (I learned a great deal from him) HATED HEINLEIN with a passion. Chuckle, so I used the stylistic devices the professor wanted the students to use and applied them to one of Heinleins texts to piss him off. LOL, I still earned an A. Jeez I hope I can locate this ancient essay, I smiled the whole time I wrote it, still am.