The Economic Gap has Exceeded the Tolerance Limit

[Sterbens]

Do you think it's fair? If only the 22 richest individuals in the world had more money than the 3.8 billion people who are currently in business? Well about 22 people have more money saved abroad than the total population of China, United States and India combined?

Let's take a look at Elon Musk, Jeff Bejoz, Bernard Arnold and Family, Bill gates etc. Their income within 1 or 2 weeks is equivalent to the income needed by the United Nations Organization to provide humanitarian aid in Yemen, Ethiopia, South Sudan etc, all of which are experiencing a hunger crisis. with 0.00000005% of their wealth, it will provide a decent life for 1 family who can eat 3 times a day for the next 100 years.

Do you think this kind of reality is fair? As it should be, economic disparities can actually be resolved, because look at the economic disparities in the world which have greatly exceeded the tolerance limit.
What can we as democratic citizens do to demand global governments stop giving excessive tax breaks to multinational corporations from the world's richest people? Or can we just watch this reality from day to day? When we don't have any influence reviewing the chest is something I often do.
Look at them just laughing:

"There's a class war, alright, but it's my class, the rich class, that makes war, and we won." – Warren Buffett.

Share your thoughts here  

Reading sources and things I use as a reference for reading and drawing conclusions (I use a translation because it's not my native language):
https://longreads.tni.org/paying-for-just-transition##_proposals
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#57b829293d78
https://longreads.tni.org/paying-for-just-transition#_edn30
https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-shocking-facts-about-extreme-global-inequality-and-how-even-it

Note: If there's a referral source I'm missing, please let me know.

[1715585003]

1715585003

[1715585003]

1715585003

[1715585003]

1715585003

[1715585003]

1715585003

[1715585003]

1715585003

[Poker Player]

Do you think this kind of reality is fair?

What seems to me is that the story you tell is the same communist garbage that comes from Marx's time, of fallaciously considering that if the rich are richer, the poor must be poorer. And not only is it not so, but such thinking shows that you don't understand how the world works.

In 1800 there were 1 billion people living on earth and today there are almost 8 billion, and this has not happened because the rich, who are getting richer, have starved the poor. On the contrary, more and more people live on earth because, among other things, with the market economy, there are people who have earned a lot of money by mass producing cheap food and selling it. And today's poor in general (there are exceptions, obviously) have access to many more goods and services than the poor of 1800, so they are richer.

I could write you an encyclopedia on this, but since I see that your previous mentality is that of the falsehood that wealth is like a pie, rather than a dynamic process, I will not try any harder.

[so98nn]

This is a complicated case study tbh.
First thing all the rich peeps in the world, they are not earning money out of thin air. They have multiple incomes sources with factories, industries and services running 24*7 to earn the money.

When you say they have XYZ income which they should distribute to fulfil the hunger of needy then note that they are already feeding millions of families who work for them. We call it as Job, salaried personnel etc.

Why not count that one?
They are already doing more than enough by paying millions of dollars in tax form. They need to contribute to charities, infra developments, and many other projects layout by government or made by themselves.

It’s completely true that there is one part of the world which is very poor but that’s due to local government failing to make it better world Or may be being the corrupted one.

So the fact is why the richest should take overburden if they are already having one in place !

[Sterbens]

What seems to me is that the story you tell is the same communist garbage that comes from Marx's time, of fallaciously considering that if the rich are richer, the poor must be poorer. And not only is it not so, but such thinking shows that you don't understand how the world works.

If so, how do you think that the ideal world works and can harmonize the economy so that it can provide prosperity for all who have the right to live a decent life? if in the end only our indifference masks empathy.

I could write you an encyclopedia on this, but since I see that your previous mentality is that of the falsehood that wealth is like a pie, rather than a dynamic process, I will not try any harder.

I will definitely accept the encyclopedia you provide and read it, of course it will be very interesting. As for the mentality of lying which one are you referring to? can it be measured according to rational parameters?

When you say they have XYZ income which they should distribute to fulfil the hunger of needy then note that they are already feeding millions of families who work for them. We call it as Job, salaried personnel etc.

Have you forgotten how today's social classifications show differences in economic terms? there is a middle to upper social strata, or lower middle class.
If measuring on the quality of individuals who have a salary just for working in a company then how do we measure the people out there who need more attention from rich people like you.

Why should the rich bear the burden of the poor? Isn't that the concept, we as humans have empathy, don't we? (if you realize it) because if you don't, then after all it will not correlate at all to solving poverty. Basically we have no influence, but we have a role as human beings who can still stand tall and make ends meet, isn't there a right to 2.5% of what we have is theirs for us to give. As a form of concern, but unfortunately our concern is not aware of what people are suffering out there.

We only sleep soundly on expensive mattresses, but before closing our eyes, try to reflect on our thoughts whether there are neighbors who are starving because they can't find a mouthful of rice to face the rigors of tomorrow's life.

[Hydrogen]

Equality is a strange thing.

Those who don't want to work. Who take no risks, make little effort to educate themselves or develop specialized skillsets. Feel they deserve to enjoy the wealth and prosperity which comes from working hard, taking risks and becoming wealthy as a result. They wish to create a society where there are no winners or losers in society. Everyone receives a participation trophy. No matter if they worked hard. Or didn't work at all. No matter if they made good decisions or bad decisions.

One narrative behind abolishing meritocracy. Punishing winners and billionaires. Is to create a society where laziness, ignorance, immorality and bad decision making are rewarded. It could represent a regressive trend.

Certainly the world has never been perfect. Wealth and wage inequality are at all time negative trends. I think what most fail to realize is, there is an underlying blueprint and design to it all. Wealth and wage equality have been systematically targeted and destroyed. In the way a silent war has been waged against the middle class in an effort to erect something vaguely resembling the beginnings of a caste system.

It could take people years to recognize and acknowledge even the most basic and fundamental aspects of current events. The learning curve is against us and against progress in general.

[Nhazwrath]

yawn.   this argument...   Again?   

try this https://www.humanprogress.org/paul-ehrlich-ignores-abundance-again/

https://www.humanprogress.org/pickup-prosperity/

and this and im not a fan of the chinese gov https://www.humanprogress.org/how-much-more-prosperous-would-the-world-be-without-chinas-one-child-policy/

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58810551  << bill gates did that and im not a fan

And heres your marxism 50 years on  https://www.humanprogress.org/castros-cuba-unfree-unequal-and-underperforming/

so please grow up. 

[coupable]

Do you think this kind of reality is fair?

What seems to me is that the story you tell is the same communist garbage that comes from Marx's time, of fallaciously considering that if the rich are richer, the poor must be poorer. And not only is it not so, but such thinking shows that you don't understand how the world works.

It's obvious that you understand how the world works, but this doesn't mean that it works in the right/fair way. Please remember that WE (as human race) are not different from other species in Earth & i think you can watch how all the species lives in a wonderful harmony with nature while the intelligent human creates civilisations by destroying the natural system without even make a fair system by which everybody can find what to eat daily and have access to all the life options he was restricted from.
I think OP is trying to discuss all those facts and didn't ask to change the world. If you see it a logic result that we spend all the natural ressources on Earth and still failing to establish a better environment for al of us. BTW, i am not a communist and don't really like the marxism as a political doctrine, but we can't deny that The analysis made by Marx & Engles are so great to resume the history and estimate a better future.

In 1800 there were 1 billion people living on earth and today there are almost 8 billion, and this has not happened because the rich, who are getting richer, have starved the poor. On the contrary, more and more people live on earth because, among other things, with the market economy, there are people who have earned a lot of money by mass producing cheap food and selling it. And today's poor in general (there are exceptions, obviously) have access to many more goods and services than the poor of 1800, so they are richer.

It makes me lough how you compared between the situation of a poor in the 1800 with another from 21 century. Poorness is poorness whenever it exists and it's so logic that their situations isn't the same just like the rich people in the 1800 who can possess large grounds and properties without even working, and by time goes by, many factors have been changed and we can see the rich power becomes more limited.
I wished to read your response to first op question : Do you think it's fair? If only the 22 richest individuals in the world had more money than the 3.8 billion people who are currently in business?

[stompix]

Do you think it's fair? If only the 22 richest individuals in the world had more money than the 3.8 billion people who are currently in business?

Just like with Bitcoin.
Add the numbers the biggest whales have and you're going to see it's quite the same, the Winklevoss twins have around 100k coins, Barry Silbert has at least 50k, Draper bought 30k, and there are many more. Yet I don't see anyone concerned about this  

Do you think this kind of reality is fair? As it should be, economic disparities can actually be resolved,

No they can't be!
Every single fucking time in human history when somebody has tried this it has ended in tragedies.
Oh, and before you come with an example from the Scandinavian countries, just a small reminder both Noway Sweden has more billionaires per inhabitant than a lot of other countries, including the USA.

BTW, i am not a communist and don't really like the marxism as a political doctrine, but we can't deny that The analysis made by Marx & Engles are so great to resume the history and estimate a better future.

Please answer honestly, have you actually read Das Kapital? All of it?

I'm asking this because I don't know why you're focusing on the way we're exploiting resources since this had nothing to do with Marx's doctrine, remember (if you actually read it) that Marx never referred to capital as money but as the means of production. Nor did he ever mention anything else about production other than keeping the profits for the ones that are doing the work, so, nope, nothing about saving the planet, reducing pollution, or distributing all the means of production to everyone, but only to the ones taking part in the production! Same for welfare, the original view on welfare is quite different from what people think it was, no airdrop after airdrop of money to everyone!

[hatshepsut93]

Do you think this kind of reality is fair?

I think fairness has no value on its own. It's better to have an unequal society where poor people have some decent living than to have an equal society where everyone is barely surviving. The global standard of living keeps getting better and better, things like child mortality or hunger have plummeted compared to 50-100 years ago.

[Cnut237]

Do you think this kind of reality is fair?

No, and plenty of others don't, either, including, encouragingly, many of those who benefit from the inequality. Here for example are two groups of millionaires who think it's unfair:
Millionaires Against Pitchforks
Patriotic Millionaires

What seems to me is that the story you tell is the same communist garbage that comes from Marx's time, of fallaciously considering that if the rich are richer, the poor must be poorer. And not only is it not so, but such thinking shows that you don't understand how the world works.

In 1800 there were 1 billion people living on earth and today there are almost 8 billion, and this has not happened because the rich, who are getting richer, have starved the poor. On the contrary, more and more people live on earth because, among other things, with the market economy, there are people who have earned a lot of money by mass producing cheap food and selling it. And today's poor in general (there are exceptions, obviously) have access to many more goods and services than the poor of 1800, so they are richer.

I could write you an encyclopedia on this, but since I see that your previous mentality is that of the falsehood that wealth is like a pie, rather than a dynamic process, I will not try any harder.

You're being both defensive and needlessly aggressive, which suggests that Sterbens may have hit a nerve.
Your argument boils down to: any level of inequality is absolutely fine, because we used to live in caves.
And of course wealth is a pie. And is also dynamic... the two aren't mutually exclusive. The pie may be expanding over time, but it is still finite. We don't live in some post-scarcity sci-fi utopia.

And hello, again.

[jrrsparkles]

Rich gets richer and poor gets poorer even though it is not fair that is the actual reality, Ofcourse if the rich people start spending their earned money today they still can't able to spend all of them in their remaining life even by living the extremely luxury life style.

Most of the rich people are helping the poor people in someway but don't expect them to bring equality in this world which is never going to happen.

[coupable]

BTW, i am not a communist and don't really like the marxism as a political doctrine, but we can't deny that The analysis made by Marx & Engles are so great to resume the history and estimate a better future.

Please answer honestly, have you actually read Das Kapital? All of it?

I'm asking this because I don't know why you're focusing on the way we're exploiting resources since this had nothing to do with Marx's doctrine, remember (if you actually read it) that Marx never referred to capital as money but as the means of production. Nor did he ever mention anything else about production other than keeping the profits for the ones that are doing the work, so, nope, nothing about saving the planet, reducing pollution, or distributing all the means of production to everyone, but only to the ones taking part in the production! Same for welfare, the original view on welfare is quite different from what people think it was, no airdrop after airdrop of money to everyone!

Did anyone read it all? Das Kapital is an academic book and not a simple book that can be understood by anybody. Me myself i am not an economist netheir a politician, but i read other books written by Marx or Engles or both of them like "The comunist Manifesto" with few books of Lenine. Honestly, i think i can resume the whole theory from a non-ideologic view point.
I refered to Marx doctrine in my reply because he was the famous thinker who described the capitalist society as Proletareat and Bourgeoisie and how the gap between them will get bigger as time goes by.
And within the same op context, i also thought about natural ressurces who are only exploited to make the rich richer and the poor poorer in a global economy by which we should all have to natural ressources in a fair way.
Marx proposed the communism as a solution for the capitalism dilemma. Me myself i think that wisely controlling the natural ressources can limit that gap between poor and rich. I remember few years ago there were two projects in this field ut i don't know if they stopped or postponed :
- The Green Project.
- The Zeitgeist Movement

[Gyfts]

So your answer to all this is global redistribution of wealth, it seems like?

If you look at the net worth of these individuals, most of all of them had their net worths spike during the pandemic - While small businesses were forced to shut down and lay off employees, large corporations were still allowed to operate. The answer to this is not taxing the rich at an absurd rate. Try propelling the lower class, not slowing down the economy and retributing wealth by taxing the rich, who already pay the largest burden of taxes, create the most jobs, and spur the most economic activity.

[Fortify]

Do you think it's fair? If only the 22 richest individuals in the world had more money than the 3.8 billion people who are currently in business? Well about 22 people have more money saved abroad than the total population of China, United States and India combined?

I don't think it's fair but frankly politicians and regulators in democratic countries have been far too weak in taking action. Large corporate money and the families who have grown up with sizable control of it have been able to pay lobbyists to shape the future to their benefit. Politicians are facing a constant battle to equalize and benefit the average citizen, however money forever consolidates on one size of the equation - funneled into all sorts of causes that aim to strip back laws or find loopholes to exploit. It's a real moral minefield because billionaires can simply shop around for any type of citizenship that benefits them in the age of globalization, but they're only benefiting a very small circle in reality.

[wxa7115]

Do you think it's fair? If only the 22 richest individuals in the world had more money than the 3.8 billion people who are currently in business? Well about 22 people have more money saved abroad than the total population of China, United States and India combined?

It depends on what you consider fair, it seems to me you would like an even distribution of wealth and that is because you think it is unfair the current situation of the world, personally I understand this in terms of whether those economic actors played within the rules of the system in place and then thanks to their ability they got where they are, if this is the case then it is fair they have reached such riches despite the unevenness of the distribution of the wealth this produces, this is capitalism in a nutshell and as imperfect as it is, it is the only system that we have that actually works, as any form of communism and socialism eventually runs out of other’s people money to hand out.

Now, if some of them reached that level of wealth through cheating and not paying their taxes that is another story, and they should pay what they owe with interest and pay a fine as well, however trying to redistribute the wealth forcefully has never worked out as this creates an incentive to not work hard as you cannot keep what is rightfully yours, and then the society just collapses as people are given incentives to be lazy an unproductive.

[paxmao]

Do you think this kind of reality is fair?

What seems to me is that the story you tell is the same communist garbage that comes from Marx's time, of fallaciously considering that if the rich are richer, the poor must be poorer. And not only is it not so, but such thinking shows that you don't understand how the world works.

In 1800 there were 1 billion people living on earth and today there are almost 8 billion, and this has not happened because the rich, who are getting richer, have starved the poor. On the contrary, more and more people live on earth because, among other things, with the market economy, there are people who have earned a lot of money by mass producing cheap food and selling it. And today's poor in general (there are exceptions, obviously) have access to many more goods and services than the poor of 1800, so they are richer.

I could write you an encyclopedia on this, but since I see that your previous mentality is that of the falsehood that wealth is like a pie, rather than a dynamic process, I will not try any harder.

Awww, extracting the argument and ignoring the usual "you are a communist so you are already wrong, a probably eat children alive".

It seems that for some people in the forum anything that sounds like taxes, equal opportunity and redistribution is "communism". It is not. It is perfectly compatible with solidly democratic systems that work for the many and not for the few. There are several countries in Northern Europe that have clarity on where the market sits, where the state does better and what way of redistribution works without creating parasites.

You say that it is all right that a few are in control of such a level of wealth because that does not make others poorer and because that is how a market economy works.

Firstly, the fact that they control such a fortune does influence the politics and policies and effectively makes a society more unequal, which is the point of the post. You argue, correctly, that wealth is not a zero sum game, but at the end of the day, that influence in policies and the ability to create loopholes on taxes mean that they contribute less to the common expenses.

Secondly, you argue that this is a consequence of the market and is part of creating common wealth. That is not correct. That is just one interpretation of the markets (the  Austrian School, Chicago and the like way of thinking). No, having free market does not mean that wealth has to be more fairly distributed.

Thirdly, redistribution of wealth does not hinder progress at all. On the contrary, more equal opportunity unveils the talent of people who otherwise could have been lost due to lack of opportunity.

In sum, a society that works for just a few is inadequate and particularly prone to create disorder and unhappiness.

Do you think this kind of reality is fair? As it should be, economic disparities can actually be resolved,

No they can't be!
Every single fucking time in human history when somebody has tried this it has ended in tragedies.
...

That is not true. Again, anything that sound like taxes and redistribution you catalogue as Communism. There is democratic and social way or running a state and it has little to do with Marx, who can only be understood in the context of its time.

Re tragedies, please notice that most wars are created by imperialism and nationalism. Communism tends to do poorly simply because it has never been applied as conceived. In my view it cannot work due to obvious misalignments in the incentive system.

Equality is a strange thing.

Those who don't want to work. Who take no risks, make little effort to educate themselves or develop specialized skillsets. Feel they deserve to enjoy the wealth and prosperity which comes from working hard, taking risks and becoming wealthy as a result. They wish to create a society where there are no winners or losers in society. Everyone receives a participation trophy. No matter if they worked hard. Or didn't work at all. No matter if they made good decisions or bad decisions.
...

That is the common misconception about what equality means. It is not about everyone having the same, it is about equal opportunities or, even more, giving opportunities for everyone. And yes, some people do not deserve it, but still, it is the mission of a modern society to provide that opportunity.

Please, read carefully, this is not about subsidizing, is about providing means for everyone to grow and contribute eventually to the common good.

[Sterbens]

snip ~

To Mr. Poker Player, so98nn, Hydrogen, Nhazwrath, coupable, stompix, hatshepsut93, Cnut237, Obito, jrrsparkles, Gyfts, Fortify, wxa7115, and Mr. paxmao thank you for the thoughts that I can't reply to one by one, because I can't deny such great thoughts.

Overall I really enjoyed and listened to how the diversity of viewpoints from each individual led me to believe that there are still people out there who genuinely care to share great thoughts and ideas. My reasoning is quite simple because I don't care about Marx's ideology, classical theory (Adam Smith), Neoclassical theory (Robert Solow and TW Swan), Neokeynes Harrod's theory or what the Communists say about Marx's doctrine. What happens if in the end greed remains within each of us. Here what I think and express is a fact, and this fact we feel today in any part of the world and in the country where I live.

When the public disclosure of the recent Pandora Papers which later sank again from the surface found that our government where I live is registered by name. It makes me hate how decent economic equality can never be felt by those of us who just survive the hardest way. As someone who is active in certain organizations to fight for human rights, then I express this phenomenon so that at least one of the many human beings can be more concerned when we feel that we live better than others. Because with a little empathy that is in someone means we have given life hope for the survival of mankind.

[coupable]

snip ~

When the public disclosure of the recent Pandora Papers which later sank again from the surface found that our government where I live is registered by name. It makes me hate how decent economic equality can never be felt by those of us who just survive the hardest way. As someone who is active in certain organizations to fight for human rights, then I express this phenomenon so that at least one of the many human beings can be more concerned when we feel that we live better than others. Because with a little empathy that is in someone means we have given life hope for the survival of mankind.

I can well understand how you thought. Your personal experience was so hard to give you bad sentiments. And at the same time gives you the inspiration to ask about inequality in society.
Yes there does exist solution-attempts for fairness and social equality but still none of them can face the real facts that we (as humans) are building a great history of great civilisalied civilisations by destroying other life forms just to feed the needs for Bourgeoisie, while we can live in harmony with other creatures without anybody get starved. I don't mind if someone gets richer, but i always hope this it's not because of the poorness of someone else .

[stompix]

Did anyone read it all? Das Kapital is an academic book and not a simple book that can be understood by anybody. Me myself i am not an economist netheir a politician, but i read other books written by Marx or Engles or both of them like "The comunist Manifesto" with few books of Lenine. Honestly, i think i can resume the whole theory from a non-ideologic view point.

A lot of poeple did, I know myself others besides me that did.
Don't know their motivation but for me, it's quite the fun, although I dislike socialism as much as humanly possible. But that didn't stop me from reading it just how being on atheist level considering my relative's ideas didn't stop me from reading the Bible or the Quran, or how I read Mein Kamf despite believing Hitler to be an idiot.
No, even if some indeed are referring to it as an academic book, first of all, Marx was not really an economist, he was more a philosopher, so don't expect anything too deep there, second, remember this was written almost two centuries ago by a guy who's education was completed exactly two centuries ago   so a lot of things he said there should be treated with the same seriousness as Noah's ark.

And within the same op context, i also thought about natural ressurces who are only exploited to make the rich richer and the poor poorer in a global economy by which we should all have to natural ressources in a fair way.

You see, this is why I asked you if you've read it.
Marx was never actually concerned with the natural resources, nor how are they exploited and definitely not the impact, as there was no such thing then as peak oil or global warming. Quite interesting also he completely denied Malthus's theory, probably because unlike Malthus who died before seeing a tractor Marx was quite familiar with the advancement in manufacturing, which of course posed a different problem for him.
So unfortunately none of those concepts you refer to can be found in Marx's theories because simply put, those were not the problems of the 19th century.

Communism tends to do poorly simply because it has never been applied as conceived. In my view it cannot work due to obvious misalignments in the incentive system.

Just like the square wheel does poorly because we haven't invented the underground plane yet.  

[Darker45]

Do you think this kind of reality is fair?

It isn't. And I think I've already grown to a certain age and probably seen enough of how humanity works that I consider anybody raising this issue as naïve. I mean, the issue is legit, of course. It calls for action. We, as individual persons and collectively as human beings, should address it.

Alas, fairness is an abstract word which might prove to be impossible to expect from humans in real life. The intolerable economic chasm within humanity is already the sum-total; it is already the general illustration. It is already the bigger picture of how it is actually impossible for humans to be humans. If we go down to the second-to-second, minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day interactions between one human being to another human being, you will realize that fairness is a helpless concept.