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

Post Reply New Topic

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.



Regards
DL[/quote]

You did.

You did.[/quote]

Not really.

If you take advantage of a sunny day to go for a walk, are you being bad?

It is possible that we do not see "take advantage" the same way.

My " to take advantage" was not meant to resemble overt profiteering in a bad way. It was just stating a fact.

Some of that profit taking or taking advantage of the markets and labor is quite good. It can and does have an evil side when the profits are hoarded by the employer who does not share it equitably with his employees who actually produce the profitability.

Regards
DL

It was more you comment of separating the bad from the really bad it seems you think employing someone and profiting from their labour makes them bad? But if they didn't profit from them they wouldn't risk their capital and that person wouldn't have a job. I don't think people "hoarding" is a thing if people don't like the wage they are paid they are free to quit.

If free to quit their job, most would.

Quitting a job with nothing ahead, in terms of something better, takes the free out of free to leaving a job.

Regards
DL

after following some of the paradise papers reporting, I have to say: nah, the rich are fine- also, we are living in a trickle UP system, since the rich are getting richer.
that basically should indicate that the trickle down system isn't working properly, the paradise papers however suggest, that it's not trickle up only because these companies are so successful, but also because they take advantage of ways of not paying taxes.

fun fact: adam smith's "invisible hand" is mentioned only once in the wealth of nations, as a way to explain "home bias". As if guided by an invisible hand, the rich would keep the factories home and pay taxes at home, rather than outsource the work to cheaper countries in east asia.
Adam smith's invisible hand therefore can with certainty said to be not working.
It always sounded like magical thinking anyway. after all, it's invisible.

The rich are getting richer but so are the poor.

I agree that our systems are not serving us well.

Regards
DL

??

You are part of the 9.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-ame ... ing-fact-2

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

Regards
DL

Firstly I am not an American and it is a fact that global poverty is falling, Within my country I would be classed as living within "relative poverty" this is a silly I have lived in actual poverty now I can afford anything I need and still have surplus to buy things I want.

True that we are getting a better handle on poverty, but it is also true that inequality is also on the rise.

Regards
DL

Does equality really matter? If my life improves but bill gates life improves more I'm still better off. Equality is growing because the population is increasing more workers means lower value of labour, more consumers means higher profits.

Both equality and inequality matter.

Take a real world situation. You are in one of two line ups to buy something. The clerk alternates from line to line as he sells his product. He makes a mistake and pick from the same line twice.

What would be your thoughts? Likely not too harsh but still irritated. If he makes the same mistake again, you will likely get upset and react.

Now think like a poor person who sees lots of cash pass him by and heading for some rich persons bank account where it will sit and do nothing instead of being in circulation where some of the value added would drop into his hand.

What would be your thoughts in such a case?

No one wants full communistic type equality for all We like our hierarchical pyramidal survival of the fittest ways. We should all want to have a stable economy and the rich and poor are the cause of instability. It is to the rich to stabilize our demography by ridding it of the poor.

Regards
DL

But the money doesn't do nothing if its sitting in a bank account the bank will be loaning it out, if its invested it will be creating jobs and if its spent its going back into the economy money is never really static. Poverty is the natural state of humanity, since we have started to become capitalist since the industrial revolution we have not only become wealthier but also more free to the point that never in any society at any point in history have people been better off than they have in western capitalist countries. Poverty is not the fault of capitalist its the fault of the parents who choose to have children they cannot look after.

The 1% or the .1% don't own 99% of the wealth. If that was true we'd all be living in thatch roofed mudhuts. The rich don't want that because then we could never afford to buy their products. It would be more accurate to say the top 20% own 80% of the wealth.

Poverty is not the natural state of humanity.

As to children. Have you not noticed how capitalism has Western nations not reproducing enough to maintain their population?

They do not do so, in part, because of the costs involved and the fact that the rich are hoarding instead of using a trickle up ideology that would stabilize our socio economic demographic pyramid.

Regards
DL

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/r ... -1.2500284

Either way, we have way too much inequality to stabilize the economy as it is the higher rich ranks and our poorest ranks that create the instability that the rich maintain for their profits and not the profit of our whole demography.

Regards
DL