80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50%

[BillyBobZorton]

Its a big joke how wealth is so unfairly distributed in this so called world. But what can we do? i think we can do exactly nothing.

[1713860563]

1713860563

[1713860563]

1713860563

[1713860563]

1713860563

[1713860563]

1713860563

[twiifm]

Its a big joke how wealth is so unfairly distributed in this so called world. But what can we do? i think we can do exactly nothing.

You can endorse politicians who support progressive tax

[dinofelis]

You can endorse politicians who support progressive tax

That's a funny idea.  How could transferring wealth to an unproductive powerful club (= the state), which is at the basis of making undeserved rich people, solve any problem of unequal undeserved wealth distribution ?

After all, the state is always at the origin of the very rich.  The state is the source of (undeserved) wealth.  That has historically been so (the kings became rich on the back of the people, and the kings were the state).  That is still the case.  The state makes fortunes, by exclusivities, granting monopolies, imposing market-skewing rules giving advantage to some, and state contracts to "friends".   The more the state can command wealth (by taxes), the more it can give it in the hands of their friends to make them rich.

The only difference in a democracy is that they now also have to distribute some wealth to sufficient people for buying them their votes, while before, they had to buy people to be violent.  Democracy has shifted things a bit.

[CEG5952]

Indeed, the distribution of bitcoin supply is not so different than traditional currencies. And, on an unrelated note, probably a good deal of those early adopters are -- together with miners -- keeping us in this long term downtrend.

[erre]

You can endorse politicians who support progressive tax

That's a funny idea.  How could transferring wealth to an unproductive powerful club (= the state), which is at the basis of making undeserved rich people, solve any problem of unequal undeserved wealth distribution ?

After all, the state is always at the origin of the very rich.  The state is the source of (undeserved) wealth.  That has historically been so (the kings became rich on the back of the people, and the kings were the state).  That is still the case.  The state makes fortunes, by exclusivities, granting monopolies, imposing market-skewing rules giving advantage to some, and state contracts to "friends".   The more the state can command wealth (by taxes), the more it can give it in the hands of their friends to make them rich.

The only difference in a democracy is that they now also have to distribute some wealth to sufficient people for buying them their votes, while before, they had to buy people to be violent.  Democracy has shifted things a bit.

Very true, we cannot ask the oligarchs  (politicians) to change the actual status quo, this will not work because they ARE the actual cause of the rigged system. And, if you are not already in the oligarchy, you cannot become a leading politician.

[coric]

That's a funny idea.  How could transferring wealth to an unproductive powerful club (= the state), which is at the basis of making undeserved rich people, solve any problem of unequal undeserved wealth distribution ?

After all, the state is always at the origin of the very rich.  The state is the source of (undeserved) wealth.  That has historically been so (the kings became rich on the back of the people, and the kings were the state).  That is still the case.
...

You're right, property is nothing but a privilege granted by the state, or a state-like entity. All of it has roots in violence, theft and war. And any new authoritarian structure, whether state socialism or lubertarian capitalism, will lead to reproduce the same system, or worse.

[BillyBobZorton]

You can endorse politicians who support progressive tax

That's a funny idea.  How could transferring wealth to an unproductive powerful club (= the state), which is at the basis of making undeserved rich people, solve any problem of unequal undeserved wealth distribution ?

After all, the state is always at the origin of the very rich.  The state is the source of (undeserved) wealth.  That has historically been so (the kings became rich on the back of the people, and the kings were the state).  That is still the case.  The state makes fortunes, by exclusivities, granting monopolies, imposing market-skewing rules giving advantage to some, and state contracts to "friends".   The more the state can command wealth (by taxes), the more it can give it in the hands of their friends to make them rich.

The only difference in a democracy is that they now also have to distribute some wealth to sufficient people for buying them their votes, while before, they had to buy people to be violent.  Democracy has shifted things a bit.

Very true, we cannot ask the oligarchs  (politicians) to change the actual status quo, this will not work because they ARE the actual cause of the rigged system. And, if you are not already in the oligarchy, you cannot become a leading politician.

They are not the cause, the cause is human nature. Replace them with other people, and after a couple decades we'll end up the same.
Bitcoin: Same thing, we have inequality because people want to amass and not share. At least tho we know the system can't be perverted in the sense of creating random money pressing a button.

[seoincorporation]

Make of this what you will.

• By 2016, the top 1% of the world’s population will have more wealth than the other 99%
• 80 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion)
• The poorest 80% own just 5.5% of the world's wealth
• The richest 80 doubled their worth in cash terms between 2009 and 2014
• More than a third of the 1,645 billionaires listed by Forbes inherited some or all of their riches
• Britain’s 100 richest had the same wealth as 30% of UK households
• The financial sector contributed $571 million to various campaigns during 2012 U.S. presidential elections
• In 2013, financial and insurance lobbies gave $550 million to policymakers in Washington and Brussels

ps: Before anyone blindly starts proselytizing about Bitoin, keep in mind the same pattern has/is emerging in crypto as well.
Less it be forgotten, the top 100 addresses own 20% (2,875,298 BTCs) of all BTCs mined thus far (13,736,250, as of block #339,450).

But the same pattern between Bitcoin and real world rich people, must be a coincidence.

By the way, nice analysis.

[dinofelis]

They are not the cause, the cause is human nature. Replace them with other people, and after a couple decades we'll end up the same.
Bitcoin: Same thing, we have inequality because people want to amass and not share. At least tho we know the system can't be perverted in the sense of creating random money pressing a button.

Indeed, it is human nature to abuse of force.  This is why the idea to give force to someone (almost no matter whom, as you point out) in order to enforce "the common good" will always end up corrupted in using that force for "the oligarches' good".

On the other hand (as username quoted Kant), in order to have freedom, one needs to be free of the arbitrary violence of others, and one needs one's fundamental freedoms to be protected (by force - there's no other way: nothing that is not force, can impose something to something that uses force).

So here's the fundamental dilemma of statesmanship:

- in order to protect the freedoms of the citizens, a violence monopolist who is stronger than any contender (in a certain territory) needs to exist (the State),

- but any one having the authority to handle the State's violence will always end up using the State's means for his own purpose and not for the general good (in as much as that can even be defined).

So a (violent) state is a necessity, and an unavoidable evil.  It is even an unavoidable thing, even if it weren't a necessity: *somebody* will end up being the strongest, and hence the de facto violence monopolist.  So a state is not only an evil necessity, it is an unavoidable evil.

This is why I'm for a minimalistic state, with as few competences as possible.  However, this hope bites in its own tail, because who's going to limit the prerogatives of the violence monopolist ?

My only hope is that people understand the mechanism of power, and generally start understanding the fundamental but unavoidable and even necessary evil of the state.

As long as there are idiots cheering for "more state" my hope is vain.  It is like turkeys cheering for Christmas.

[polarhei]

money makes money.

With infamous examples, the power of 1-to-9 scheme (1 dollar in, 10 dollars out) is incredible.

The rich have been protecting this for years. So nothing special, only keep making worse.

[teukon]

So here's the fundamental dilemma of statesmanship:

- in order to protect the freedoms of the citizens, a violence monopolist who is stronger than any contender (in a certain territory) needs to exist (the State),

- but any one having the authority to handle the State's violence will always end up using the State's means for his own purpose and not for the general good (in as much as that can even be defined).

So a (violent) state is a necessity, and an unavoidable evil.  It is even an unavoidable thing, even if it weren't a necessity: *somebody* will end up being the strongest, and hence the de facto violence monopolist.  So a state is not only an evil necessity, it is an unavoidable evil.

Bad logic:

• Either X is true or Y is true.
• X and Y would both be bad, and for the same reason.
• Therefore we must accept X as a necessary evil.

Furthermore, the real world serves as a counter-example to your claim.  We do not live within a single state.  There are in fact hundreds of different countries in the world.

On the other hand (as username quoted Kant), in order to have freedom, one needs to be free of the arbitrary violence of others, and one needs one's fundamental freedoms to be protected (by force - there's no other way: nothing that is not force, can impose something to something that uses force).

So in particular, there is nothing to protect people from the state.  You discard absence of a state without a second thought but, by this logic, I can discard the state with equal ease.

[username18333]

. . .

On the other hand (as username[18333] quoted [Wikipedia quoting Kant]), in order to have freedom, one needs to be free of the arbitrary violence of others, and one needs one's fundamental freedoms to be protected (by force - there's no other way: nothing that is not force, can impose something to something that uses force).

. . .

(Red colorization mine.)

. . .

“Freedom” manifests itself within a bacterium as the random activation of its functions for the entropy of its molecules. Why would the “freedom” of a Homo sapiens sapiens be any different?

[username18333]

. . .

Furthermore, the real world serves as a counter-example to your claim.  We do not live within a single state.  There are in fact hundreds of different countries in the world.

. . .

(Red colorization mine.)

An image of the Earth-Moon system of Great Empire of Earth with the current imperium thereof (an Earth-centered celestial sphere of a particular radius) brightened.

Even if the position currently occupied by the Emperor was not so occupied, you would still “live within” (teukon) those bodies that would have been superior to his own.

[ajareselde]

money makes money.

With infamous examples, the power of 1-to-9 scheme (1 dollar in, 10 dollars out) is incredible.

The rich have been protecting this for years. So nothing special, only keep making worse.

Money makes more money indeed, because its hard to fail when u have all the time in the world to make your next move.
Typical example would be to start a contest in bussines ideas, the best idea gets funded by you.
Give all ideas to economy expert , and what he decides is the best you finance , and recieve a precentage of profit without spending any time on that project anymore,
allowing you to rinse and repeat.