This is one of the many reasons that so many people are talking about turning over the reins of societal control to Neo-Nazi Aryan Psychopaths in motorcycle skull masks.
This is absurd and people have had it up to their eyeballs with the absurdity of this situation.
The three richest people in the US – Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett – own as much wealth as the bottom half of the US population, or 160 million people. Analysis of the wealth of America’s richest people found that Gates, Bezos and Buffett were sitting on a combined $248.5bn (£190bn) fortune. The Institute for Policy Studies said the growing gap between rich and poor had created a “moral crisis”.…The study found that the billionaires included in Forbes magazine’s list of the 400 richest people in the US were worth a combined $2.68tn – more than the gross domestic product (GDP) of the UK. “Our wealthiest 400 now have more wealth combined than the bottom 64% of the US population, an estimated 80m households or 204 million people,” the report says. “That’s more people than the population of Canada and Mexico combined.” The report says the “billionaire class” continues to “pull apart from the rest of us” at the fastest rate ever recorded. “We have not witnessed such extreme levels of concentrated wealth and power since the first gilded age a century ago.”
Except that the levels are way, way more extreme than that.
Forbes celebrated 2017 as “another record year for the wealthiest people in America”, as “the price of admission to the country’s most exclusive club jumped nearly 18% to $2bn”. That was a tenfold increase on the amount of money needed to enter the list when it first started in 1982. Josh Hoxie, another co-author of the thinktank report, said: “So much money concentrating in so few hands while so many people struggle is not just bad economics, it’s a moral crisis.”
Yes. I agree with that. This is not really an economic problem so much as a social problem.
Of course, the study was done to attack Donald Trump’s tax plan – which is actually good overall, in that it lowers taxes for the middle classes and raises them for the poor AKA the coloreds – and a claim that the wealth inequality has something to do with racism.
That framing is nonsense, but the issue is real: why do these very few individuals have all of this concentrated wealth? What is the purpose of it? What are they able to do with these billions of dollars, other than play the role of pseudo-state powers?
You cannot spend a billion dollars on an individual lavish lifestyle. You cannot live in ten mansions and you cannot sleep with 100 high class hookers per day. You cannot drive 100 Italian sports cars. You cannot wear 1000 Gucci suits. You cannot eat 1000 steaks. This wealth is simply being horded. And the sole reason to horde wealth is to keep it in your own hands and out of the hands of others.
The left – and even some guys on the right – want to frame this as an economic problem somehow related to “capitalism.”
I don’t care about “capitalism” any more than I care about “socialism” or “communism,” but I can assure you, this is no more a failure of capitalism than tripping on a banana and falling off of a building is a failure to learn to walk – when you’re on the top of a building you should be careful and someone should have cleaned up that banana and there should have been a railing to keep you from falling. Except this analogy sucks, because there are a lot more factors involved in “capitalism” turning into 3 people having more wealth than 204 million people.
We have a mixed economy right now, with all sorts of regulations, but the regulations are used for the benefit of the super-rich and to the detriment of the middle class in order to create a situation where wealth is horded by a small number of people in a way that deprives the rest of the people of access to the benefits of the most materially wealth civilization in all of history. And it isn’t just the most productive – it is thousands of times more productive than previous civilizations.
Point being: in first world countries, there is enough to give everyone a very comfortable quality of life, where they want for nothing, being held by just a few people. The reason that these people are holding it is specifically to keep everyone else from having it, so as people continue to have to spin their wheels working at meaningless jobs selling each other things in order to survive.
This is different than historical eras, where it genuinely was an issue of material production – economics – and in order for the wealthy to maintain a high quality of life, others had to do without. I’m not going to make a comment on whether that previous system was morally correct or not, because that is now irrelevant. It is ancient history.
Solution is Futurism
Point blank, there is no economic solution to this problem because it is not an economic problem. The only solution is a solution implemented by the state where the people with astronomical wealth have it seized and given back to the people.
But the solution is much bigger than this. We have to leave the consumer model of civilization. We have to become post-economic, where labor is incentivized by something other than money. The purpose of billionaires is to maintain the current model of consumer based economies.
Money is a status symbol. That is the equation.
If you want to understand this concept, go to a mall and try on $99 Wrangler jeans, then go try on $990 Gucci jeans.
You will notice that they are basically exactly the same.
Probably also virtually identical to $30 H&M jeans.
And then understand that if the technology had been invested in 10 years ago, any pair of jeans – any single piece of clothing – could be made at your home on a 3D printer.
As much clothing already can be.
Making status equal money and then limiting the amount of money available to the people, you create a rat race competition with absolutely zero meaning other than nigger-tier “get dat muffuggen money muffuggah” material status.
That is not “capitalism” but “consumerism” – the latter has been made possible by the material wealth created by the former, but they are not the same system. And again, I am not shilling for capitalism – just so you understand.
What I am shilling for is post-economic National Futurism, where resources are simply distributed by the state and status is based on a measure independent of material wealth.
We really do not have any choice. Some version of an all powerful state entity that distributes resources to everyone is necessary for progress.