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

Post Reply New Topic

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

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

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

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.

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

The pyramid is brilliant.

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

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.

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.

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