Posted on 09/18/2021 9:06:12 AM PDT by doug from upland
It's part of the "economy of scale." Large amounts of money tend (on the average) to earn a higher return on investment than small amounts.
1. The more Capitalism is “adjusted” the less it works for everyone. What we have today isn’t Capitalism, but a messy unworkable combination of various economic theories and practices that impede each other.
2. Wealth has always and will always concentrate in a few hands, no matter the political system. Acquiring wealth generally requires long-range planning, deferred gratification and consistent focus on the future, and few people are interested in any of that. If we have a worldwide economic collapse, in a few years the same formerly rich people will be rich again, the same poor will be where they always are, poor, and the rest will stretch in between in a continuum, just as they did before the collapse.
Some are smarter than your average person — I defy that anyone on earth is “100 times smarter” than average. Luck plays a significant role as well. The more resources you start with, the easier it is. In the financial district of Boston I see guys in their early 20s in designer suits driving super cars all the time. Do you really think they’re 100 times smarter than the rest of us, or maybe a lot of them had daddy pay for them to attend an outrageously extensive university, and then had one of his buddies hire them. With the education and resources and connections they have they can probably maintain their family wealth but many of them never would have made it from scratch.
The other issue is the refrain “it’s government”. That’s true, but the mega-wealthy use their resources to control government for their own benefit and rearrange economic systems at the expense of many others (open borders and HB1 for example, cheap labor for the wealthy, less opportunity for working Americans.
The need for a strong back and such has been replaced in many areas. That I think, has driven away the social 'need' for men in many forms. That is a destructive force. The rise in male suicide is a blow back in many ways.
I have not. Is it truthful or propaganda?
Played to its conclusion, EVERY game of Monopoly ends the same way.
One player has ALL of the money.
Not if you play BLM Monopoly.
You light the board on fire and hit whitey with a skateboard and have some Democrat politician grab everyone else’s money and gives you 10%.
Was kind of hoping you could say how accurate it is or isn’t.
Starts basically with the Vince Foster “suicide” and follows Linda Tripp, at least so far, as the main character in the story. Makes Lewinski (who I guess sold her rights for this) look like a love-struck innocent. Makes Paula Jones look like an ignorant hick. Does show Kathleen Willey as a victim of an assault. The actress playing Ann Coulter cracks me up.
The main barrier to move up the economic scale these days is the education system.
In a few hands? Like the Chavez’s of Venezuela, the Castro’s of Cuba, the Kim dynasty of North Korea?
At least wealth can be earned in a capitalist world.
I do not really accept the premise of this kind of thinking, that wealth inequality is a problem, much less a serious problem. In order to see the reason why, we need a different study.
Lets compare the living standard of a 25th percentile (near the bottom of the economic ladder) family in 2021 with a 75th percentile family in 1901. My belief is that the 2021 family will have a living standard much higher than the 1901 75th percentile family even though wealth inequality in our society is enormous in both cases.
This is the result of Capitalism. Sure, the rich get richer in comparison to the poor, but the real miracle is that the poor get lifted out of the horrors of grinding poverty. This is what we should be looking at. Not the fact that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos are wealthy beyond anyone's imagination. The fact that even the 25th percentile family has two cars, a house with a thermostat, and leisure time is due to Capitalism.
in a free, modern, advanced,,division of labor country, when the rich get richer, so does the economic system as a whole, and also the average individual participant in the system
“Perhaps better:
Capitalism: Some people are (relatively) poor.
Communism: Except for the elite, everyone is poor.”
—————
Perhaps best:
Capitalism: Some people are (relatively) poor.
Communism: Except for the elite, everyone is poor (because the elite steal most of the wealth by force).
I think you are conflating two separate things.
1.) concentration of the majority of wealth in a minority of people.
2.) concentration of the majority of power in a minority of people.
It is true that when unrestrained, the wealthy could simply use their wealth to purchase unlimited power.
So, assuming the wealthy can’t be restrained, it would be fair to say that…
3.) concentration of the majority of wealth in a minority of people CAUSES a concentration of power in a minority of people.
But do we have to accept that assumption?
No. The Founders certainly didn’t.
The whole point of the Constitution was to distribute power (rights) equally regardless of wealth.
Under the Constitution, we were given the tools by which to allow wealth and capitalism to flow and concentrate freely to its most efficient use - EVEN if that meant there would be concentration of wealth in a minority of people… and yet NOT drift toward oligarchy.
This is Capitalism - a very good thing. Extremely wealthy people are the ones who hire us. They are the ones who invest in our business ventures. They are the ones we want to be sitting across from at a business luncheon. They are the philanthropists.
Why should we want to get rid of the very rich? We shouldn’t if we are smart, because Capitalism maximizes prosperity across ALL wealth classes.
So, the idea that capitalism is flawed because it concentrates power in a few oligarchs - this argument presents a false choice.
There is a third option: embrace capitalism and it’s inherent wealth inequality but follow the Constitution.
Marxists and other would-be tyrants hate our Republic because the ideal pairing of Capitalism with our Constitution and bill of rights limits their power.
That is why they are out to defang the Constitution - and already have in many ways.
Stealing elections for one.
Runaway deficit spending and fiat currency for another.
Open borders for a third.
The demonizing of free enterprise capitalism and private property.
The destruction of the family.
The list goes on.
Capitalism and accumulation of wealth is NOT the problem.
Disregard or the Constitution is the problem.
People in the U.S. today have no idea what true poverty is.
But one of the fatal flaws in Human Nature is that people would be happier if everyone were equally miserable.
Is like Gorky said in Lower Depths...”Quote...Miserable being must find other miserable being. Then, is happy!...Unquote”
"To rise" is an intransitive verb. "To raise" is transitive (i.e., can take a direct object).
Regards,
The old saying was “The rich get richer and the poor get children.”
It's really difficult to quantify "intelligence." Viz.: Is someone with an I.Q. of 120 twenty percent smarter than someone with an I.Q. of 100? Perhaps the scale is logarithmic.
In a "winner-take-all" system, it is sufficient to be only slightly smarter (or more handsome, or stronger - depending upon the given competition) to win the race and "take all."
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.