Are the .1% are shooting themselves in the foot by hording?

Post Reply New Topic

This isn't new. Many experts now say that the Irish Potato Famine wasn't just a crop failure, as the British overlords continued to export food out of farming areas even though the farmers were starving to death.

Before you start a revolution I suggest you read Animal Farm.

The "0.1%" are largely there due to cronyism, are they not? Most of them inheriting someone else's wealth, and able to maintain wealth by receiving bails, special tax cuts, and basically being backed by politicians whom increase control over other businesses.
Think about it. Even Standard Oil was on the verge of collapsing and splintering off among shareholders (the government only expedited it). Nowadays, instead of collapsing and splintering off into new businesses and more competition, we see them getting bailed and receiving special treatment from the politicians they back.
For that reason, it comes to no surprise to me that the "0.1%" tend to vote for leftist policies, knowing that they will increase in power. They want more government and to become more intertwined with the government.

Now, there are those who are charitable and earn so much money that they don't know what to do with it. Bill Gates is an example of this. I would like to note that one should not mistake non-profit organizations for charity, for example, the Chan-Zuckerburg Initiative, which he largely uses on himself (people praised him for donating 99% of his shares to charity... but the reality is, he "donated" his shares to himself).

So, long answer short: they're not shooting themselves in the foot. Another reason to this would be that leftists happen to worship most of the 0.1%, and ironically, leftists are the ones who claim to be for income equality. So, when the very people that claim to be for income equality are the ones supporting the 0.1%, we know that the 0.1% are playing them correctly and therefore not shooting themselves in the foot; rather, they are becoming more powerful in this way.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 844333001/
And families passing large estates from one generation to the next would get the most concentrated and least justified tax break of all. The phased repeal of the estate tax in the House Republican measure would cost at least $172 billion over the next 10 years.

The current administration wants to cut back the estate tax, which prevents the rich from passing on their wealth to the next generation without paying taxes on the transfer.

Even without cronyism the rich would still have more opportunities to make more money.

Even in a society totally without cronyism the poor would still be at a disadvantage.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyl ... 5aab931ae6
According to Forbes, 68% of the top 400 on their list made their money. Which means that only 32% inherited it.