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

Page 1 of 5 [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

17 Oct 2017, 1:44 pm

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

Presently, the rich preside over a demographic pyramid that is top shaped and de-stabled.

Ironically, because the rich have put themselves so far from the base, they themselves have become the most unstable part of the pyramid. This is not good for the rich.

Trickle down, an economic concept which is what we all live in, if increased would remedy the stability problem.

With the world below being de-stabilized by the rich, due to their distance from the bottom, and the rich knowing the benefits of stability, would be well advised to lower its demographic position and bring profits to the whole demography.

To the rich, with profits to all being possible, I would ask, what are you waiting for?

Regards
DL



underwater
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,904
Location: Hibernating

17 Oct 2017, 1:47 pm

Unfortunately, greed has its own dynamic.....


_________________
I sometimes leave conversations and return after a long time. I am sorry about it, but I need a lot of time to think about it when I am not sure how I feel.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

17 Oct 2017, 2:36 pm

They don't care about what is good for them and the world, they care about having the most excess possible regardless of consequences.


_________________
We won't go back.


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

25 Oct 2017, 4:36 pm

underwater wrote:
Unfortunately, greed has its own dynamic.....


Indeed.

We will have to add stupid to the description.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

25 Oct 2017, 4:39 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
They don't care about what is good for them and the world, they care about having the most excess possible regardless of consequences.


I think they actually do care but they cannot express it well without having a united front.

Regards
DL



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

04 Nov 2017, 9:27 am

maybe they do care, but there's the cognitive dissonance between that and the ideal of hording, which results in the opinion that people at the bottom are at the bottom because they are lazy, stupid, and live within societies that prohibit progress.
But I think that by now the gamble is on automation: if the machines do all the work, then the lower 99.9% have no reason to exist - and after the 99.9% have starved and died from thirst or killed each other in the post-climate-change deserts that will span the majority of the globe, the remaining humans will look back on this period as a horrific historic event, that could have been prevented, if only people had had the consciousness that future people have.

the way we look back at ww1 and 2. Or the 30 years war.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Aspiegaming
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,044
Location: Hagerstown, MD

04 Nov 2017, 11:55 am

Who needs workers and consumers when you have stock buy backs?


_________________
I am sick, and in so being I am the healthy one.

If my darkness or eccentricness offends you, I don't really care.

I will not apologize for being me.


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

04 Nov 2017, 1:53 pm

shlaifu wrote:
maybe they do care, but there's the cognitive dissonance between that and the ideal of hording, which results in the opinion that people at the bottom are at the bottom because they are lazy, stupid, and live within societies that prohibit progress.
But I think that by now the gamble is on automation: if the machines do all the work, then the lower 99.9% have no reason to exist - and after the 99.9% have starved and died from thirst or killed each other in the post-climate-change deserts that will span the majority of the globe, the remaining humans will look back on this period as a horrific historic event, that could have been prevented, if only people had had the consciousness that future people have.

the way we look back at ww1 and 2. Or the 30 years war.


I do not think that your scenario will ever come to pass as governments start to squawk, thanks to public pressure, when unemployment gets too high.

Remember when they built the Aswan dam. The government had the choice of using pure man power or mechanized systems. They chose manpower with pick and shovel even though the cost was higher because their unemployment numbers were too high.

Suppliers and markets need consumers and if the public cannot consume due to poverty from unemployment, they will soon scrap the mechanical systems for a more labor intensive and consumer creating work force.

Regards
DL



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

04 Nov 2017, 10:39 pm

The pyramid is brilliant.

Every class can look down at the lower rungs, and think, "At least I'm better off than them".



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

04 Nov 2017, 11:30 pm

It's a sort of collective action dilemma. One company could try to raise wages for the lower skilled workers, but might appear while doing so to be less competitive if less money is thrown at the top executives.

It's a sick system and even the wealthy executives are caught up in a twisted web of competition. They need an external force acting on them which could either be government involvement or a new market shift.

Think of when a country wants to do the Right Thing with reducing nuclear arms or nonproliferation. Doing so on their own is very awkward; it really needs a Pact or Treaty where several countries sign onto having it imposed on them for the greater good of all. For a while, companies have been dealt with using a mix of Government influence and Labor Union contracts, but the very wealthy are still surging far ahead.

The worst part is their money is not adding to real productivity, but just accumulating and rolling over in their investments.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

04 Nov 2017, 11:57 pm

No one seriously uses Trickle down economics as justification for inequality. I don't think keeping hold of surplus money is a problem at all, the problem with many of the wealthy is so many of them got there by illegitimate ways. Here in the UK the richest Briton is the Duke of Westminster a 26 year old who inherited his fathers estate, this wealth was no gained through capitalism but through conquest and oppression, its utterly obscene to allow these people to keep this stolen wealth, but someone like Bill Gates earned his wealth and shouldn't be lumped in with these types.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

05 Nov 2017, 2:53 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
The pyramid is brilliant.

Every class can look down at the lower rungs, and think, "At least I'm better off than them".


True, except the bottom tier that along with the top produces the instability of the system and hurts us all.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

05 Nov 2017, 2:58 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
It's a sort of collective action dilemma. One company could try to raise wages for the lower skilled workers, but might appear while doing so to be less competitive if less money is thrown at the top executives.

It's a sick system and even the wealthy executives are caught up in a twisted web of competition. They need an external force acting on them which could either be government involvement or a new market shift.

Think of when a country wants to do the Right Thing with reducing nuclear arms or nonproliferation. Doing so on their own is very awkward; it really needs a Pact or Treaty where several countries sign onto having it imposed on them for the greater good of all. For a while, companies have been dealt with using a mix of Government influence and Labor Union contracts, but the very wealthy are still surging far ahead.

The worst part is their money is not adding to real productivity, but just accumulating and rolling over in their investments.


Well put.

I especially agree with your first and that is why I think it to governments to get involved in raising the minimum wage.

We are all in this together and it is to the government to level the playing field.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

05 Nov 2017, 3:03 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
No one seriously uses Trickle down economics as justification for inequality. I don't think keeping hold of surplus money is a problem at all, the problem with many of the wealthy is so many of them got there by illegitimate ways. Here in the UK the richest Briton is the Duke of Westminster a 26 year old who inherited his fathers estate, this wealth was no gained through capitalism but through conquest and oppression, its utterly obscene to allow these people to keep this stolen wealth, but someone like Bill Gates earned his wealth and shouldn't be lumped in with these types.


True that many of the super rich got that way illegally.

It is also true that all the super rich got that way by taking advantage of the market place and work force.

With that in mind, I would not try to separate the really bad ones from the bad ones.

A viable and moral socio economic demographic pyramid is what we should seek and those do not take into account where the wealth comes from.

The same applies to the bottom tiers which ignore if the person is there due to chance, illness or if he is just plain lazy.

Regards
DL



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

05 Nov 2017, 3:29 pm

And you think employing people and supplying people with products they want or need makes them a bad person really?



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

05 Nov 2017, 9:54 pm

Daniel89 wrote:
And you think employing people and supplying people with products they want or need makes them a bad person really?


Get the quote so that I might see who said that.

Regards
DL