20% of the time, it works every time.
How should we help the super rich?
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Considering how rich he still is, he doesn't appear to be doing a good job.
We have one who may give away a load of money, out of hundreds. We have the fall of communism in Europe, and perhaps a few others, out of all the system changes. The odds seem to me to be towards violent revolution than generosity from the rich.
I agree a revolution that makes the world unambiguously better is a bit more rare, but one that manages to take out the people rage on those deemed responsible is not.
Last edited:
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
or we could show the full image, @Gorbles
Spoiler :
This country started as anglo landowning men with the only legal enfranchisement, 100+ hour workweeks for children when industrialization got going.
By the mid 30s the "I don't see this graph reversing from laws" reversed from laws. Laws work. When people don't vote, when they don't think it matters which party has an attorney general, when they don't think it matters to push one of the parties towards what they believe, they don't get a say. But the votes are counted.
The idea that you could coordinate a mass obliteration of rich people and redistribute their wealth and not recreate one of the old systems of oppression with the new killers/elites before you could re-coordinate votes is a failure of logic. "Votes are suppressed". Sure, a percentage. A smaller percent than is the number of non-voters who already agree with the voters on which next step should be taken. LET
THAT SINK IN etc One more for the back: they're going to suppress your coordinated assault a lot more than your coordinated vote.It takes a lot less class consciousness to show up to vote than it does to avoid detection plan a 1 day assault where you kill the rich people, have some actual government that redistributes everything but is magically not the new oppressors of the survivors.
Low participation dictatorships don't spontaneously self-liberate faster and beyond than democracies advance themselves. Run that algorithm in your head.
If you want to do battle, a lot more people are going to show up after the circumvention of their vote than before one. If it all comes to a head, pick a better battlefield.
When right wingers win, everything shifts right. You want left? It's iterative, and requires energy and dedication. A lot less dedication than a violent conspiracy that succeeds in planting a self-sustaining nonviolent future of equal people not living the rest of their lives in terror of their own new masters.
The thread is more than the image, @Hygro. If that's what you want to focus on, feel free.
I have nothing to say about the rest of it because you seem to be creating arguments I never argued for. I do think you're being too reductionist about people's positions here.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I have articulated that your "it can't happen" had happened and continued to happen for a while, which is the crux of your POV.
Meanwhile your alternative is more work, with more dangerous secondary consequences, on every axis that makes voting seem like too much work.
Meanwhile your alternative is more work, with more dangerous secondary consequences, on every axis that makes voting seem like too much work.
Some numbers:
Having a net worth of $1 million will not put you in the top 1%. You’ll need a minimum net worth of around $11.1 million to get into the 1% of Americans by wealth.
finmasters.com
It is likely that the above do not take the drop in stock values during 2022 into consideration.
Having a net worth of $1 million will not put you in the top 1%. You’ll need a minimum net worth of around $11.1 million to get into the 1% of Americans by wealth.
Millionaire Statistics: How Many Millionaires Are in the US? [2022]
Americans are fascinated by wealth, but how much do we know about it? These millionaire statistics tell us more.
finmasters.com
- There are about 22 million millionaires in the U.S.
- 8.8 % of U.S. adults are millionaires.
- 33% of U.S. millionaires are women.
- Having $1 million puts you in the top 10% of wealth in the U.S.
- There are about 62.5 million millionaires globally, a 11.4% increase from 2020
It is likely that the above do not take the drop in stock values during 2022 into consideration.
What alternative? Are you sure it's an alternative I'm espousing, or are you jumping the proverbial gun a tad?
And why are you even framing it as an alternative? Have I ever said I don't support using our right to vote (when and where it is exists)?
And for a third, what "it can't happen" are you referring to? I'm on mobile so scrolling is a pain so this is genuine question. You responded to a Twitterv thread I linked.
Like I said. I think you're reducing too much.
Drat! Well, I still have time!
sophie
Break My Heart
Warren Buffett - The Giving Pledge
More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day."givingpledge.org
Not saying this is typical of the super rich. But it could become so (I mean realistically probably not but more likely than some coordinated attack on all elites all over the world).
Warren Buffet net worth in 2010: 47B
Warren Buffet net worth in 2022: 110B
Bill Gates net worth in 2010: 53B
Bill Gates net worth in 2022: 102B
Elon Musk net worth in 2012: 2B
Elon Musk net worth in 2022: 171B
Larry Ellison net worth in 2010: 28B
Larry Ellison net worth in 2022: 66.8B
Mark Zuckerberg net worth in 2010: 6.9B
Mark Zuckerberg net worth in 2022: 42.5B
If the aim is to reduce their wealth over the course of their lifetimes, I think it’s fair to say they are doing a pisspoor job of it
More to the point, as Marx noted all the way back in the 1870s, individual morality does not enter, because the structure of algorithm compels greed and cruelty, as genuine altruistic behavior would cause the individual to lose out and be replaced by a capitalist who would take the selfish action.
If Buffett actually wanted to do something good for society he would have ordered BNSF to accede to the rail workers’ demands and given them 10 days sick leave a year. Instead he used his influence in Washington to unilaterally end the strike through congressional action. Likewise if Musk wanted to do good he would booster for high speed rail and throw his money into public transit ventures. Instead he spends his time flogging gadgetbahn pipe dreams with the explicit aim of derailing practical HSR projects. And this is the point. These billionaires, even the “good ones” will only ever commit their stolen wealth to ventures that are favorable or amenable to them, irrespective of public will or ultimate good.
Lol
[snip] Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed. Birdjaguar
Last edited:
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
@Gorbles You are, however, endorsing that opinion.
You are arguing legislation cannot address income inequality, and showed a graph that makes it look dire. As I am educated in the topic of American income inequality, I was able to recognize that that graph deserves some context, i.e. basically the same basic graph that includes the years before where it was already that high, and then dropped. It dropped due to legislation done through America's less enfranchised democratic America through democracy in the 1930s-1950s.
You are arguing that legislation has reached its limits. That's obviously not true, non-participation is huge, and actively promoted by those whose participation would get the whole thing iterating the correct direction.
If you aren't strong enough to coordinate a vote in a country where that's possible, thanks to those who fought for your to do so, you definitely are not organized enough kill all the rich people and then meaningfully redistribute their, what, documents of ownership in a legal fiction you're already circumventing? their cars you can't all share and don't need in order to replace the ones you have? And then not end up with a new tyranny governing a population traumatized and going to continue to traumatize thanks to the echos of their mass violence.
You are arguing legislation cannot address income inequality, and showed a graph that makes it look dire. As I am educated in the topic of American income inequality, I was able to recognize that that graph deserves some context, i.e. basically the same basic graph that includes the years before where it was already that high, and then dropped. It dropped due to legislation done through America's less enfranchised democratic America through democracy in the 1930s-1950s.
You are arguing that legislation has reached its limits. That's obviously not true, non-participation is huge, and actively promoted by those whose participation would get the whole thing iterating the correct direction.
If you aren't strong enough to coordinate a vote in a country where that's possible, thanks to those who fought for your to do so, you definitely are not organized enough kill all the rich people and then meaningfully redistribute their, what, documents of ownership in a legal fiction you're already circumventing? their cars you can't all share and don't need in order to replace the ones you have? And then not end up with a new tyranny governing a population traumatized and going to continue to traumatize thanks to the echos of their mass violence.
Casual reminder to not assume why people like posts. Endorsing a post generally (which is how I use them) doesn't mean I align exactly with every particular. If you want to respond to another poster, respond to them singularly. You're kind of avoiding some of sophie's arguments though, so, that might be a non-starter
I am arguing that legisation is failing to address income equality, and arguments that are, to be reductionist myself, "wait X years" are arguing to wait too long. The problem isn't just here, it's overdue.
I am not arguing that legislation has reached its limits, though I do think you're being foolishly naive if you think it can solve things by itself. This is why I previously gave historical examples of every time the law was broken to advance society. I think you really need to think on why you're assuming the positions you think I've assumed.
I don't think that killing all the rich people is something that I can click my fingers and achieve. I do not think violence is something that should be preferred. But sophie said much the same thing and you pretty much brushed over that in favour of assuming some kind of mass killing scenario. You're not examining the reasons; you're judging based on the conclusion individuals are arriving at. Again, this is something I think needs introspection, instead of whatever these gotcha-like arguments are. I know you're arguing in good faith, but I think you're falling for a contrived argument that's easier to defeat in your head rather than examine the real-world situation that's leading to arguments being written.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
You don't have a faster answer than this:
The earlier drop is the big crash. However, this halving of income share in 6 years starting in the mid 30s, and continuing decades until the Republican Party through votes instituted the Print Money For the Existing Rich, similarly through the ballot. Too bad people didn't hold the line.
Look at those really nice troughs in the mid 70s.
You know what the difference between the "Good Times" and the times before and after? About a consistent 8% difference in voter participation.
You're hyperfocusing on the US example that I provided for general thread reading (beyond the image that you're also hyperfocusing on) when you're debating with a Brit (among others, I'm sure). I also note you've dropped every other tangent including the point that I'm not arguing against voter participation, whereas here you still seem to be phrasing your post as though you think I am.
"too bad people didn't hold the line" is probably where we differ. Gerrymandering, disenfranchisement . . . these are things that are inflicted on a voter base. You seem to think people just stopped caring, when there's ample evidence (yes, in the US alone) to suggest that it's not just "print money for the existing rich" (which we obviously agree on), but a combination of policy and outright stealing the vote from swathes of people while increasing their reliance on a working week with fixed hours that keeps them from committing to things beyond mere existence.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
People literally chose to stop voting. "Both parties are the same". Then the reversal happened and we got to see how not the same the parties were. The amount of since-then, because-of-that disenfranchised voters has been enough to swing elections, but is still less than cynical non-participation making those elections swingable. The particular disenfranchisement we've seen over the past 20 years in the USA has been a slow and steady chipping, each victory makes their next victory possible. Which is the same for us, which is why lifelong participation and non cynicism is a requirement. Freedom will never be free.
You want labor laws enforced? Laws on the books already created against past opposition with the original intention of enforcement? You make sure your prosecutors have the party's endorsement. The party responds to the people in it, that's how it works. If getting critical mass at any local level seems difficult, creating an entire new replacement government to conspire and organize successfully a critical mass is going to be exponentially harder — yet made easier by a concurrent electoral movement.
You want labor laws enforced? Laws on the books already created against past opposition with the original intention of enforcement? You make sure your prosecutors have the party's endorsement. The party responds to the people in it, that's how it works. If getting critical mass at any local level seems difficult, creating an entire new replacement government to conspire and organize successfully a critical mass is going to be exponentially harder — yet made easier by a concurrent electoral movement.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
In recent years it looks like it's still going up/holding goes up because it's not limited to voting age population, the ratio of kids went down.
Though 2020 was an outlier and, "coincidentally", the most progressive administration in my lifetime.
But the overall demonstration of this graph shows how enfranchisement overall has increased from the get-go.
Though 2020 was an outlier and, "coincidentally", the most progressive administration in my lifetime.
But the overall demonstration of this graph shows how enfranchisement overall has increased from the get-go.
In the American system, voting in the primaries should probably be measured as a metric of Engagement. An awful lot happens at the primaries
Better?
