Decapitate capitalism?
Decapitate capitalism?
yup, another one of those threads...
If the members of household’s living standards are not being upheld by its income, then they live beyond their means. The first or most effective way to address this is to lower or remove its most extravagant expenditure. The next is to spread any disproportionate contributions to that household. Let us imagine that whole economies are similar to the given household, and suggest a way to redress its imbalances. It seams to me that a massive percentage of wealth is attributed to a tiny percentage of people, we can see how this works in the charts below, and here we are taking America [USA] as our example.
If we ‘decapitated’ capitalism and spread its resources more evenly, then would the result be a more universally efficient society, one where most people are better off. Then from this standpoint would the communal pool of wealth grow exponentially for all its members.
The most worrying thing for me is that gradually the less better off are loosing ground to the most wealthy! it is clear that any kind of equalising factors capitalism promotes itself as having, are quite simply not true.
goto 'conclusion' if you dont wish to read all that supports my reasoning, or already know the figures.
Here are some calculations of monetary distributions from a 2007 study:
a, Top 1 percent; 42.7%
b, Next 19 percent; 50.3%
c, Bottom 80 percent; 7.0%
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
Notice that on the charts provide [on the site above] the percentage of wealth concerning the bottom 80% has gone down since 1893 - 2007!
We now use an algorithm to distribute the wealth from the top 1% (a) to the other two groups (b, and c), that would of course only give us a mathematical figure for the redistribution of said wealth. This would clearly show that the bottom two groups would be far better off! We also have to take into consideration that the top 1% buys things and invests its money to some degree. My argument is that such a massive proportion of funds, money that most of the community works hard for, not just that 1%, would be more beneficial if utilised by and for the entire community. Extravagance and luxury are the least efficient ways to spend that money, and such massive funds should not be utilised at the whim of individuals [weather they ’earn’ it or not [I don’t think anyone can earn that amount of money]], who may spend their wealth either abroad or on goods that bring comparatively little or nothing to the communal pool of wealth.
If for example you earn your money in Britain then move abroad to a tax haven e.g. like Monaco, then the money is not being redistributed via taxation [circular/communal moneys], and it is entirely remove from the pool in which it is earned. This is the equivalent of making gaping holes in the communal pool of wealth, of which all our work and finance is put into. The same applies to a degree as concerns extravagance and luxury, if e.g. beyonce buys gold trousers worth 1,000,000 pounds, that is a waste of money that could be used more efficiently. Equally if someone spends thousands/millions on coke, then that to is an extravagance which wastes our money and worse puts it into the hands of criminals, making them more powerful and putting our children at higher risk of drug abuse.
From the site…
In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, WE CAN SAY THAT JUST 10% OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES ‘OWN’ THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
On a side note see also;
Figure 3: Income and wealth by race in the U.S.
The system is clearly racist to some degree, although it must be noted that the whites built the economy [even if it did use slaves] to begin with, therefore the wealth would naturally be distributed via inheritance. To call this racist is perhaps going to far, it is simply that one group got there first and built the nation into what it became.
If you see the chart here…
Table 3: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.
It seams that recessions are a good thing for reducing the wealth at the top, unfortunately it also reduces wealth across the board.
See also this section….
Table 7: Share of capital income flowing to households in various income categories
In 1979 the top 1% had 37.8% of wealth, while the bottom 80% had 23.1%, yet by 2003 this had been reduced for the masses to, 12.6% [top 1% up to 57.5%] almost exactly half of what it was in 79’!
Conclusion; there is only so much validation to inherited wealth, being that it is not earned but more importantly, that if we hold to the principle;
‘everyone has the right to become more successful, and that it is potentially possible for anyone to get to the top’
It then follows that any kind of inheritance is hording wealth and position, and denies the very principle one got to the top with originally.
As it is natural to pass wealth down to ones descendants and friends, and to horde wealth for ones own [said group], it also follows that eventually the balance must eventually be redressed! There comes either a point where the top positions are so stifled by hording and holding positions within a circle/group, that there is no fluidity in them. The nearer we get to that the more like a feudal society we become [in a manner], and an aristocracy is created ~ in this way. There also comes a time for example ’now’, where the moneys are needed to bring the wealth of the masses up to a position where they live to a reasonable standard, and that the principle of capitalist freedom becomes again valid [if it ever was?].
Ideally we should create mechanisms by which wealth cannot be horded to such a massive degree, and that the 1% [at least] is automatically returned to the communal pool. By redistributing wealth, the pool may grow exponentially faster than with less universally efficient systems, which in return would provide for more success for more people, but not to the degree by which that success returns us to the hyper rich situation of the current 1%.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Quetzalcoatl
