General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy do we tolerate mega-wealth?
This is a Facebook Note written by a friend of mine, Frank Dana, that was so good I thought folks here might enjoy reading it.
By Frank R. Dana
(I wrote this about a year ago, initially as a comment on someone else's post, then as a status update of my own. In honor of the information I posted today, based on an Oxfam report, that EIGHTY-FIVE people control the same amount of wealth as the lower half of the *world* population, I'm reiterating...)
...Why do we tolerate mega-wealth? Not mere millionaires, but really obscene, couldn't-possibly-use-it-all accumulations of untold multiple billions of dollars? Your Bill Gateses your Saudi sheiks, your Apple Computers. (And this isn't about Apple's corporate value, but its wealth some say they could be sitting on as much as $100 billion.) Societally, I mean, why do we accept, admire, even praise the "achievement" of consolidating so much wealth into the control of one entity?
If your small fishing village was experiencing a famine, or if your country had instituted wartime rationing of food, it wouldn't be considered "okay" for some morbidly obese glutton to be stuffing himself to death with food while everyone around him fought not to starve. Even if he obtained the food fairly, heck even if he produced every bite of it himself, it would still be viewed as shameful to be wallowing in such excesses of consumption. It wouldn't have to be illegal, or even "wrong", to be viewed as morally lacking, and most people would take a dim view of someone with such a gluttonous appetite, and so little self-awareness or empathy for the other members of the community. Fatso would get the stink-eye, for sure.
Yet, when someone scrapes together a pile of gold big enough to choke the Nile and shoves it in their basement, we marvel at their achievement and praise their "success", as if what they've accumulated are merely points on a scoreboard, and not actual, fungible resources. (Money, dammit, IS a commodity, if perhaps a uniquely volatile one.) Why do we drool over Apple's $100 billion corporate bank account, and devour breathlessly-written pieces on what a "problem" they have trying to figure out how to spend all that cash, without even raising the question of whether their massive wealth is a good thing? How could it not be, right?
Wouldn't it be appropriate (perhaps even more appropriate) to instead react with something like, "Holy shit, Apple so overprices their products, and/or underpays their employees or suppliers, that they're sitting on $100 billion in CASH from being the peddlers of wildly unnecessary digital toys."? Why would it be wrong to consider their massive wealth and the process by which they achieved it just as gluttonous, shameful, and reprehensible as our theoretical food-hoarder?
Or, take Bill Gates. Now, he's done a lot of really amazing things with his wealth, things which are undeniably praiseworthy. I have absolutely no desire to diminish the incredibly generosity he's demonstrated, with his incredibly vast personal fortune. But, thing is, he didn't HAVE to do that. (Which makes it all the more laudable, of course.) He could just as easily have sat on the entire $70+ billion or whatever it was, or swam around in it like Scrooge McDuck. So, why would we (again, societally) favor people having that option? Why was it even "okay" that he became worth so much to begin with, regardless of what he did or didn't ultimately choose to do with the money? Why are we so unquestioningly worshipful of financial gluttony?
go west young man
(4,856 posts)"The American Dream" has been sold for so long and is such a part of our psyches that Americans are willing to literally die for it. They go with nothing or close to nothing because they are convinced they haven't earned it in any way. And now they are too unmotivated to fight to change it.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)
We don't have a choice but to allow it. The only way to stop it would be to confiscate the wealth which I can't imagine any politician on any side would do that. I have no problem with people working for the wealth they have, however, how about just stop the dedication, the "hiding" the money and absolutely no trusts for them to set up. No non-profit crap that basically hides the money and just tax the money appropriately. Whatever is left, they can have and make even more if they want. I don't think we hate the rich, we just hate the fact that they don't pay enough taxes. If a guy has 5 billion, why not tax him and leave him with 2.5 billion..that is still a ton of money.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)Tax fairness is a large part of the problem. Lots of money could be recouped by increasing taxes on the wealthy, taxing the religious money makers, and taxing overall capital gains at the end of the year by a larger percentage. There should also be a greater tax directly aimed at the large stock market players, the hedge funds, angel investors and big day traders. The type of trading should matter. The little guys and small investors are being shut out of the best deals and insider information is obviously playing a larger part than ever before. Hence the reason the top 1% wealth keeps expanding. The government should be looking at ways to level the stock market playing field....it's out of control.
mountain grammy
(26,642 posts)until conservatives convinced Americans that only lowering taxes on the rich will create a booming economy. Even senior Bush knew this was "voodoo economics" until he didn't.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)but you beat me to it.
I am a strong individualist; probably that American upbringing and conditioning so deeply embedded in my psyche.
I'm also, though, a collectivist.
Can I be both? Is that schizophrenic, or just more complex than the polarized, black/white, either/or conditioning that humans, Americans in particular, seem to think in?
I'm for the collective good, and for working together to provide it.
I'm also for individual rights, and I want to be able to draw a line in the sand that cannot be crossed. In reality, of course, that line has to shift and move with the sand, so that my individual rights don't impede anyone else's, and don't harm the collective good. Still...
go west young man
(4,856 posts)it is just social conditioning. I do like making money myself though so I guess I'm a responsible capitalism socialist ...the inability to focus on regulation is at the heart of the problem. We are the patient bleeding on the table but no one wants to stem the bleeding. I think Obama has implemented some underground things to get the money flowing to the lower echelons but he has been fought all the way on it. America needs a new re-regulation plan...similar to a New Deal type plan. One that focuses on drawing in the corporations and giving power back to the people.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I've been calling for re-regulation since Reagan got started.
Fridays Child
(23,998 posts)The way that he frames the issues is tremendously useful for helping people to see these things in proper perspective.
Given his implicit world view and the fact that I would not disseminate his writing for personal gain, may I assume that I can broadcast this piece far and wide?
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . I have a feeling he won't mind.
Fridays Child
(23,998 posts)I bet I'm not the only one who would like to share the article. I don't do any real "facebooking," or I'd ask him, myself.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)150 years ago Andrew Carnegie could go from being the poorest person in the US to the richest, and we're still stuck with the romantic notions that came from that. (Though that ignores another problem -- even if anyone could get ahead back then, everyone couldn't...)
Wounded Bear
(58,685 posts)Don't you understand? We're all completely free to become that wealthy.
newdemocrat999
(37 posts)My question is why as humans do we tolerate poverty in our country ?
We like to put ourselves on top of the food chain and then we watch brutal nature videos
of other species hunting and killing for food , territory .
I think we are the brutal ones not the animals we watch. We allow people to die or live a shorter life because they can't afford a medicine that is on a shelf 15 feet away. Or they can't afford a healthy food as they walk by it a foot away.
That's what's crazy to me.
As to the article , it's because the rich or the 1% learned a very , very , very long time ago.
Have an army or police force , give them just enough to not feel hunger or thirst . Have a place they can have shelter and they will
follow orders .
It hasn't changed . Hire a police force or an army , give them good medical , good dental , give them a pension , give them a roof over their heads , and they also will follow orders .
That's why sir we tolerate wealth , because it's backed up by a gun. It's not the rich or the politicians who have to carry a gun.
They only need to control the armies that do .
srican69
(1,426 posts)Our own ... Not so much.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)That he even phrases the question like this demonstrates that he has no understanding of economics.
A sensible question is "why don't we tax the rich more".
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . Do you really see no middle ground between our current, winner-take-all, (not-so-free) market-driven economy and a 'command economy?'
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Let businesses do their thing, tax them, and redistribute it. That's the "third way" in a nutshell.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . already favored by Mr. Rankin above.
I am increasingly coming around to the belief that we are at a crisis point in which none of our existing models of economic organization is able to meet the simultaneous requirements of (1) providing a means of participation for all who must derive a living from it; and (2) sustainability. Capitalism may be arguably better than a 'command economy,' but by limiting our view to one or the other of those models, we are locking ourselves into a dichotomy of failed models.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What will we do when automated labor is cheaper even than the cheapest third-world labor? That's not as far away as people think, and we're completely unprepared for it. (I'm writing this from India, where you can see it happening right now, incidentally...)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)that advocate taxing business and redistributing it.
I mean taxing business at higher rates than today's pittance. Since you say it's Third Way "in a nutshell".
How is cutting social security, as advocated by Third Way, helping to "redistribute" wealth to the less fortunate?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That is his blog (or was so until about a week ago). He said, over and over and over again, he wants a relatively laissez faire business environment, relatively high taxes, and relatively activist distribution in cash rather than in kind. That's the clearest "third way" message there has been for the past decade.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)However, on the Third Way website I did read their take on raising taxes on individuals. They did talk about raising the cap on FICA. But they were opposed to increasing payroll contributions for middle class workers which voters would favor if necessary to preserve social security and medicare. They also favor Chained CPI and means testing for social security.
I found nothing indicating Third Way favored increasing taxes on corporations. Maybe I didn't look hard enough. I felt slimy looking at their website.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and conservative activists.
Read more than a page or two in if you didn't see Yglesias's consistent message.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)The US is one of a handful of nations that taxes worldwide profits. It also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Make those rates even higher and you will see companies moving their corporate headquarters overseas. This is costly enough that you wouldn't see it all on day one, but that would only make sense when they could save hundreds of millions (if not billions) every year simply by moving their headquarters to a different nation (Canada or Mexico).
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The effective corporate tax rate is way low in the U.S. with many paying ZERO. The poor corporations, woe is me.
You know how those corporations have rewarded tax cuts, by moving our most valuable jobs overseas. The more we lower their taxes the faster they move.
I have an answer for them moving their operation out of the country. TARIFFS. Big tariffs on their products.
We can manufacture anything here and those corporations that leave can be replaced.
They should be beholden to us for providing them with a market, not the other way around like you seem to want it.
I heard your same fucking story on 60 Minutes. I didn't buy their right wing lies then and I won't now.
You must be on special assignment today.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)What are your credentials?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Are you claiming the US is not one of only a handful of countries that tax worldwide income? Are you claiming the US does not have the highest tax rates in the world? Are you claiming the vast majority of companies pay next to zero in taxes?
It would be nice to guage your understanding of the current tax environment.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If you don't believe that become a Republican!
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I wonder why that is
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)When you talk about "not tolerating mega-wealth" what you're describing is not sensible tax rises, it's a command economy with idiocies like a maximum wage.
This moron clearly doesn't get that the goal of left-wing economics is *not* to punish the rich, it's to help the poor.
srican69
(1,426 posts)We tolerate apple sitting on 100 billion or even a trillion dollars if its returns can beat its cost of capital..(what its cost of capital is, is much larger discussion)... the moment Apple's managers cannot find projects that do that ...then investors start wanting return of capital in the form of dividends and share buybacks.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What's the purpose of capital accumulation at that point?
srican69
(1,426 posts)you were being wildly facetious ..
reformist2
(9,841 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... and we've been the amazed dupes. Game's up, and we're pissed.
Oh yeah, good article.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)Just look how we adore the celebrities in this country. Most people could tell you about any of the star actors or singers, but couldn't tell the name of their two US senators.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We all believe that deep down somewhere.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)people tend to reject the idea that they are being victimized. Nobody wants to think the world is THAT bad. But it is.
Americans put up with far too much out of fear of getting involved and a bad national case of Denial. I don't buy that so many are ignorant. I think it's a matter of not wanting to face it, because if you face it, what do you do about it?
A sense of powerlessness, victimization, hopelessness sets in = a downtrodden mentality. Not everybody is a fighter. many just give up. And the fat cats love that. They get rich off that ostrich syndrome.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Kurovski
(34,655 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Wasn't she rich enough after the Chamber of Secrets?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)By continuing to buy JK Rowling's books aren't people continuing to "tolerate her mega-wealth"?
On the same note, perhaps people should boycott sporting events whenever the highest paid athlete is paid a "mega" salary. A major league pitcher can live perfectly well on $1 million per year; why should he be allowed to be paid $20 million per year?
Larry Ogg
(1,474 posts)After all, their the ones that insure the campaign coffers of both political parties remain filled with that dirty green stuff that nobody can get enough of, because, the workers that do all the dirty work, or actual labor of creating real wealth could never cum up with enough cash to cover the insanely high cost of winning an election within our pretend democracy.
Besides that, anyone who objects to the modus operandi of insanely rich predators, and their political sock puppets, must be a communist.
unblock
(52,286 posts)this is what logic people forget when arguing against republicans.
how is it that we always have such logical arguments and sound science and their logic is so feeble and their facts are all wrong and so on and yet we seemingly can't convince anyone of anything?
because they've got greed on their side, and greed lowers the bar for logic. the nuttiest excuse for an argument suddenly sounds quite convincing if you profit from it.
so republicans don't need much of an argument if it sounds like their own personal tax cut is at issue. as far as most republicans are concerned, arguments against corporate welfare just don't make sense because they think any change there means their own personal taxes will go up.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)The powerful will not willingly give up their power.
moondust
(20,002 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 25, 2014, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)
I think there used to be some social stigma that may have had an effect in limiting gluttony, possibly related to it being one of the seven deadly sins of Christianity. Then Reagan and the financialization of the 80s turned that upside down and greed became good, etc.
Now with so many billionaires creating "success inflation," there are probably some psychopaths on Wall Street dreaming of becoming the first trillionaire. It's absurd and destructive.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)That is extremely insensitive/
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . It happened to be in the essay I shared, and I didn't think it appropriate to edit someone else's work.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You could have redacted the derogatory comment and added a comment that you redacted it.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . The comment was not directed to any actual individual, nor was it in any way intended to disparage overweight folks as a group. It was in reference to a hypothetical person being used in the story. I don't believe it is necessary to prettify language to that extent. You obviously disagree, and that's your prerogative.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The problem is that they aren't taxed enough.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...a lesson the mega-wealthy are careful to reinforce through all the media we let them own.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)He's just another Carnegie and Rockefeller. No one gets that disgustingly rich without fucking people over both on their way and to remain on top (it's a contest). Each turned philanthropic. Douchebags often turn philanthropic. Why you show so much reverence for Bill Gates should be the title of your next thread: "Why do we glorify douchebags once they turn philanthropic?"
Philanthropists love to stick their name on everything.
Here's The Gates Center at, fittingly, Carnegie-Mellon University.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)"Waiting for Superman" was his charter school propaganda campaign. The entire movie was about Americans not being competitive with the ROW. If you read between the lines: Gates is rationalizing why he won't pay top dollar to American IT workers and engineers. By convincing America that we our education is wonting, he gets cheap labor from overseas. Take it a bit further, he and Apple are in a race to get their products into to schools. Tons of money to be made. Philanthropy, turned propaganda, turned profit motive. I wonder how many Bill Gates Centers there will be???? That Bill Gates, he's a swell guy.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)How come we pity/disdain the hoarder old lady with the house full of cats and magazines and plastic bags, and the crazy old guy with the 350 junk cars in his pasture, but think of the guys with $30 Billion as people to be honored and emulated?
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Fundamentally setting any type of Wealth Cap. Means people will stop working just prior to reaching the cap. Not a big deal for them but potential trouble for all those around them. Imagine Henry Ford drawing the line at 3000 cars per year. Otherwise he hits the Wealth Cap. When Berkshire Hathaway stopped growing so Buffett never hit the cap etc. Or worse yet the Harvard endowment limited by the Cap. Or a Surgeon deciding between a 14hr surgery for free or not?
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)its killing us.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)This is a really excellent article about it from January 2014:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/cash-hoarding-becomes-addiction-5502
Where are todays super rich putting all this loot? When they're not hoarding it, a good bit of it is cascading into politics. The Washington Post reported last week that in 2012 the billionaire Koch brothers and their allies stuffed at least $407 million in politically active nonprofits (and didn't even have to disclose their donors.) These rich people want to influence, corrupt and poison our democracy by getting politicians elected who won't tax them.
----------
But why isn't the top 0.01 percent ever satisfied? Whenever we ask them to pay a little more in taxes, or ask them to pay us a "living wage", they look at us as though we were crazyas if we were asking them to burn their money, even though they have no other use for their excess cash. It's almost as though they cling to their money like a security blanket, afraid to let go. Besides just narcissism and ethics, do they also have issues with anxiety as well? Let's ask the forensic psychologist Dr. Stephen Diamond:
"Avarice can describe various greedy behaviors such as betrayal or treason for personal gain, hoarding of material things, theft, robbery, and fraudulent schemes such as Bernie Madoff's, designed to dishonestly manipulate others for personal profit...Greed is about never being satisfied with what one has, always wanting and expecting more. It is an insatiable hunger...Addiction is a form of greed. Addicts always want more of what gets them high, gives them pleasure, enables escape from anxiety."
And from the clinical psychologist, Dr. Tian Dayton:
"The person who uses money to mood-alter can have their relationship with money spin out of control; by being overly focused on accumulating it, spending it, hoarding it or using it to control people, places and things... Just as with a drug or alcohol, tolerance increases and they may find themselves needing to devote increasingly larger amounts of time to these activities... Just as is the case with any addict, their preoccupation with money becomes their primary preoccupation and money becomes their primary relationship."
(long article at link)
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)good to get a doc's word on this.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)perception vs reality on economic distribution