The top 26 richest billionaries own half the money of the whole world

[bodefuceta]

That's perfectly fine by me.

No, not really. Some of those profit from distributing proprietary software as operating systems, web services, applications and more. This completely violates people's freedom, does not allow them to even know what they're running on their own machines and make absolutely ZERO effort to even inform them of that. On top of it ALL of these are SPIES who make money out of people's data. These people deserve no less than life in jail.

 

[Hanafuda]

Rofl what? People wouldn't have all the same necessities if billionaires didn't exist? Jobs don't exist in non-capitalist countries? Lost me on that one.

That’s ok I’m just throwing in another person’s perspective for another take on the situation and something to further the conversation. It’s not like I’m on “Team Billionaire” or anything lol.

 

[notimp]

Yes, and in this regard 401k plans ended up being about the only way middle class Americans could or would invest in the stock market. The problem of course is the poor aren't investing in retirement because they don't have a consistent amount of money they can spare and the amount of people who meet the classification of poor are substantial. Since wage stagnation is a thing, the only realistic approach for the neocapitalist opinion to work would be if those who retired were to seed substantial parts of their own retirement funds to their child for generations--ie, middle class or poor financial dynasties. It's not enough to argue it's merely risk aversion to the repeatedly stock bubble busts.



Except the money was borrowed to pay for the bailout, and everyone who kept their stock in the market through the whole recession saw near a complete rebound (minus growth) of the value of their stock. Of course, that's the rub: a lot of people couldn't hold off the whole recession because that was their retirement money. Others may have had catastrophic emergencies. Meanwhile, those who had a lot of money could buy tons of stock while it was cheap and see an even larger rebound.

Basically, there's too many steady-state presumptions from base income to consistent growth built into the idea of using the stock market as some sort of great equalizer.

Entirely agree with every word. (In europe financial crisis was leaveraged with guarantees on everyones savings, not with borrowed money directly. (State debt.))

The part I didn't put into writing but thought about was, that you have to pay special attention to the "on average" part of "the stock market on average produced more growth statement". Because the stock market is a "set up game already". So if more money flows in - existing structures benefit most. And be it just "trust structures".

Its also decoupled from your entire local community (so are investment banks), so its even hard to argue politically to make people understand, why your retirement funds should flow into an exchange rate swap or into five foreign startups.

But you've laid out the issue with the neoliberal approach to "fix this" much better than I could have in every way.

 

[fiis]

Welcome to Earth after the invention of money--shit ain't fair and it's too bad. Git gud.....or an inheritance.

When was it ever fair? Way back when it was survival of the fittest physically, now more or less it's survival of the fittest mentally.

 

[notimp]

When was it ever fair? Way back when it was survival of the fittest physically, now more or less it's survival of the fittest mentally.

Instagram? (Highest-Paid Models 2018: Kendall Jenner Leads With $22.5 Million)

 

[fiis]

Instagram? (Highest-Paid Models 2018: Kendall Jenner Leads With $22.5 Million)

haha def not referring to intelligence, just having the awareness to capitalize on an opportunity is enough, for a small portion of the population. That awareness may not have come from her (her mom most likely) but she still capitalized.

 

[H1B1Esquire]

the fittest physically

Life is: fair; everybody dies!

Life is not: Equal; some die sooner than others.

It could be said: Survival of the shittiest.

 

[fiis]

Life is: fair; everybody dies!

Life is not: Equal; some die sooner than others.

It could be said: Survival of the shittiest.

hhahaha well said!

 

[notimp]

haha def not referring to intelligence, just having the awareness to capitalize on an opportunity is enough, for a small portion of the population. That awareness may not have come from her (her mom most likely) but she still capitalized.

Two notions. First - the 'invisible hand of the market' is supposed to make everything along those lines good. In reality it doesnt exist. In concept, I see the benefits of that kind of method to lets say channel ambition.

Then I'm taking a step back. And I'm looking at f.e. the instagram model ('what currently works'), and I see the "stars" coming out of it replacing f.e. movie stars of the past (which worked alongside a similar model), and I look at the model and all I see is a tighter integration between brands and consumer. Consumers think, that they are "direct in contact" with influencers, marketing agencies tell them "you are brave for sharing this much of your life with the world", they dont vet. They are just out there to be bought.

To then live the life of someone that has been bought, to be a brand representative. Thats it.

Then I take a further step back - and ask myself, what does this look like from that perspective. There is no artistic merrit. There is nothing "special" about the person. There is no higher goal. There is no integrity. There is no intelligence, there is just -- this.

And those are the new role models.

And call me radical, or stupid - at that point I'm just turning around saying to myself - no, thats not it. Let me not buy the products advertised.

 

[kuwanger]

Two notions. First - the 'invisible hand of the market' is supposed to make everything along those lines good. In reality it doesnt exist. In concept, I see the benefits of that kind of method to lets say channel ambition.

Well, no. The invisible hand of the market was a metaphor for describing how a bunch of rational actors function as a whole. Adam Smith himself readily acknowledged that this would tend towards monopolies in many markets, which would not be inherently corrected. The other problem that is constantly paved over is that plenty of people are functionally irrational actors. Yet somehow the collective irrationality is settles down--I don't think that's the terminology they use--into valuations of goods and services that are equivalent to "perfect information" which is the cornerstone of the hypothetical model of the invisible hand.

In short, as long as you understand it's a model and possibly really good at getting a good idea of how a lot of markets work but not all and don't treat it as equivalent to reality, you should be fine. When you start taking your models to be reality, you have repeated stock crises as those who are supposed to monitor and regulate renege on their responsibilities.

And those are the new role models.

New role models, just like the old role models. Notice a trend that something is becoming popular, dump all your money into it. It de facto becomes popular, and then you cash out. That's the game that's played when you have sufficiently few venues--modeling seems like its own closed bubble--and there's any real means to elevate any one person over another. It's definitely heavily marketing, of course, to try to guarantee that investment pays off. Happens with actors, musicians, you name it.

It's why I really don't look at celebrities as role models. They're people most often judged on how big of a take they bring in, and that rarely has nothing to do with them personally.

 

[notimp]

Watched both Fyre documentaries yesterday - so the emphasis on that part of "evaluating" your place in life comes from that.

The Hulu one is better, so watch that first - if you have the interest.

Hulu: Fyre Fraud
Netflix: FYRE: The Greatest Party That Never Happened

With actors, at least there was a craft. With models, at least there is beauty.

With this new form of - idk - there is just "my brand is staying healthy and positive" (direct quote from two influencers in the documentary which translates to "most commercially viable"), and fake smiling into camera. To be honest, its the fake smiling thats killing me. Apart from the entire rest..

And that I can't stomach "you can become living brand testimonial" as something worth to aspire to - and I think, that that pretty much holds universally, not just with my ethics/moral priming. There is something deeply sad about people who are actively trying to achieve that goal.

But I think you have laid it out pretty much correctly as well.

Thats on the second part.

On the first part, the only points that I have to add is, that I personally think of free market capitalism as a model to basically take everything that inherently drives human beings - pronounce it good/right prima facie, and then let drive alone create value.

All the big concept stuff of somehow irrationality becomes best approximation of real value and so forth isn't true in the slightest. But people pay what they are willing to pay is.

Now there is public sector work for example which also generates huge value - but isn't even part of free market calculations. But its more than an externality. Also there have to be questions asked about projects that take more time than 5 or 10 years, because not many corporations have venues to tackle stuff like that (R&D). Looking at that stuff changes your understanding of value.

Everything that drives one person to exceed in their first half of their working lives, and if they are lucky a little longe, is what drives capitalism, and what it can deliver or channel. Everything of value that goes beyond that, is out of its reach. (You need other institutions/systems for that.)

Also let me also emphasize on that you should never look at your models as a representation of reality. It is the biggest mistake anyone can make. "The map is not the territory" is an important lesson for likely developments in our near future as well.

You can always pronounce lets say 'free market capitalism' as your model, but once you've set it in place societally, you'll always have to look at the outcome all the time, and take to the parts that were not addressed, not compatible, not working - and find some way to integrate them as well. Thats an ongoing process.

Whats marketing? Everything. 40% of your driving force in free market capitalism. You can lie to the heavens, and people will have no idea. If you cant deliver, and you are good at expectation management and crisis PR, people will have no recourse. Its the creation of desire. Its the censorship of critical voices. Its the differentiator between people staying at home and traveling around the world for leisure (starting in 1759). Whats effective, best or productive in marketing? We don't know.

But its almost half of the driving principal of capitalism.

 

[fiis]

Two notions. First - the 'invisible hand of the market' is supposed to make everything along those lines good. In reality it doesnt exist. In concept, I see the benefits of that kind of method to lets say channel ambition.

Then I'm taking a step back. And I'm looking at f.e. the instagram model ('what currently works'), and I see the "stars" coming out of it replacing f.e. movie stars of the past (which worked alongside a similar model), and I look at the model and all I see is a tighter integration between brands and consumer. Consumers think, that they are "direct in contact" with influencers, marketing agencies tell them "you are brave for sharing this much of your life with the world", they dont vet. They are just out there to be bought.

To then live the life of someone that has been bought, to be a brand representative. Thats it.

Then I take a further step back - and ask myself, what does this look like from that perspective. There is no artistic merrit. There is nothing "special" about the person. There is no higher goal. There is no integrity. There is no intelligence, there is just -- this.

And those are the new role models.

And call me radical, or stupid - at that point I'm just turning around saying to myself - no, thats not it. Let me not buy the products advertised.

I agree with you actually, good point. A lot of variables go into this.

 

[notimp]

To be honest, its just a hodgepodge of ideas, that popped into mind, when I read the much more concise summary from kuwanger.

Its not even worked out or correct in its entirety (what does "everything that isnt the first half of your working life isnt capitalism" even mean... ).

But it draws upon a few concepts that basically should lay out, that free market capitalism isn't the 'only thing at work' in our current economical systems in the west - and that I think of it as a model to channel different kinds of ambitions, that are all related to "personal drive" to generate growth out of that.

In the second half of your worklife, maybe already gained experience becomes more important, so enabling your individual drive in every sector might be less important, but I clearly havent mapped or thought this out/through yet.

 

[Phearoz]

Surely you don't mean to tell me that income inequality is a massive problem worldwide! Le gasp!

Seriously though, yeah it's out of fucking control. If all of them donated 1% of their wealth, world hunger would no longer be an issue. We could probably fund universal healthcare and tuition-free college too. The problem is that the entire world bought into the "greed is good" garbage philosophy that spewed forth from the USA in the 80s. Now nearly forty years later we continue to have an almost-farcical reverence for wealthy individuals, even if their wealth was handed to them or it's mostly dark/blood money.

Eventually there's going to be a breaking point because the gap is simply unsustainable. At that point we have to decide if we want to go out like bitches and have a worldwide economic collapse imposed on us by billionaires who believe themselves isolated from it, or sack up and start rolling out the guillotines.