International Oligarchy is not just a Russian phenomenon. It exists right here in the USA.

[PEB]

One of the most articulate in the MAGA crowd I give you Peter Thiel. And he is the one who been driving this ship has JD Vance go work for him and he spends billions on anti aging drug development.

 

[brothir]

Yeah, I imagine you're more knowledgeable on the ins-and-outs of how to implement such taxes than I am so I'll defer to you here. That is the problem with the kind of wealth we're talking about. None the less, I do firmly believe something HAS to be done about it.

The good news is that essentially every party that's left of center or further left in every normal western country wants to do exactly that. The bad news is that the last 20 years or so has also seen large spikes towards the right, whose parties want the opposite.

 

[brothir]

Partial credit here. Inequality was way down from 1930 to 1970. Started trending up everywhere in the developed world in the early '70. Not ancient. Globalization plausibly could have made some contribution, but it's not plausible that it was most of the story. Reagan/Thatcher-type policies leaned into the trend, but also can't be much of the explanation. Weakened unions, same (that is, you can see how it could have contributed but it doesn't explain the magnitude, and the timing is wrong for it to be a major cause).

How large is the magnitude?

 

[brothir]

It's true that oligarchy is not strictly a Russian phenomenon, though they could be world-leaders in that regard. It's not true that oligarchies exist in almost any normal Western country, and the US qualifies there.

Very rich people existing and right-wing parties finding success do not by themselves imply an oligarchy.

 

[brothir]

Definitely relevant. Disgusting reality.

But I find it funny that none of the anti-capitalists in here have ever put forth their position of wealth lines. Where is the line? Can you show us?

You understand effort and capability are huge factors in this problem too right? Not just coincidences.

I don't think acknowledging that successful people existing has anything to do with the capitalist/anti-capitalist divide. The discussion is more about whether society is intentionally funneling wealth upwards, and if there should be radical measures to do the opposite.

 

[tdluxon]

Yep. The ultra rich can do whatever they want without consequences, and if the worker class tries the same thing, we face decades in prison.
The right wing Gov spies on its own citizens and assassinates prominent leftists and OPENLY ADMITS TO IT.
I see zero reason to classify Trump's America as a democratic country.

Trump is pretty much the perfect example. Lie, cheat, steal, commit fraud… no consequences since he’s rich and becomes president with the help of even richer people.

 

[brothir]

If something THIS blatant can't unite people to say "ya this is problematic, we should talk about addressing it" nothing will. -.-

Some people have a preference for extreme wealth inequality, and also power inequality in the sense that they genuinely want kings that can rule with impunity to replace democracy.

Separately, I think the most uniting sentiments are stuff like "Idi Amin was bad".

 

[kflo]

Its getting quite absurd isn't it? And yeah in addition to the luxuries there's usually huge investments into the future. Those people tend not to retire early not because they can't but because they've become accustomed to a luxurious lifestyle and want to maintain that throughout their life. That's their right of course but I can't stand the "woe is me" routine from such people.

Taxes have to be paid and you're saying we shouldn't burden literal multi-millionaires with the burden of taxes. If

people making $1m ARE burdened with taxes.

Sure like whether you're living beyond your means or not but if you're making $1 million/yr there's no reason you shouldn't be well ahead of schedule if your consumption is within reasonable upper-middle class limits

Making $1m/yr is absolutely on the path to generational wealth. What are the expenses we're imagining here that would prevent such a person from squirreling away hundreds of thousands a year? The only thing I could imagine would be expensive, rare medical treatments which can go into the hundreds of thousands but chances are if you're making $1m you have access to quality health insurance one way or another.

It’s a “path”, yes. It’s not a guarantee, and it takes a decade plus to get there. I’m not saying cry for those people. But again, it’s not the automatic generational wealth people think. Kids can graduate from expensive universities without debt though…..

 

[Jack V Savage]

How large is the magnitude?

Not a simple question. Depends on what measure you want to look at, and I kind of think you want to look at a bunch. If you look at the Fed's GINI index, it actually hit a local bottom at around 34 right around 1980, and most recently (big lag) was at 41.3 in 2022. But I don't figure any of us (myself included) has a good intuitive grasp of what that means exactly, which is why I stayed vague.

 

[brothir]

Not a simple question. Depends on what measure you want to look at, and I kind of think you want to look at a bunch. If you look at the Fed's GINI index, it actually hit a local bottom at around 34 right around 1980, and most recently (big lag) was at 41.3 in 2022. But I don't figure any of us (myself included) has a good intuitive grasp of what that means exactly, which is why I stayed vague.

Well, if it was a simple question I would've likely known the answer already, right? An increase of 20% from low to high is definitely notable, but hard to see why one would need to be desperately worried. As you said, GINI is fairly abstract and there's no 1-to-1 link between somewhat higher GINI and starkly increased human suffering. The average person is way more rich now than in 1980, and human suffering has globally gone down.

With that said, there's also no reason I can see to try and intentionally get GINI higher. The fact that it's been at a lower number also proves that reducing it is entirely possible, which is what I expect would happen if relatively high GINI proves to be a problem. I wonder if the information age has mechanisms that causes GINI to trend upwards, or if it is strictly based on policy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Some people have a preference for extreme wealth inequality, and also power inequality in the sense that they genuinely want kings that can rule with impunity to replace democracy.

No one outside a few psychos like Vance and his circle puts it that way, though.

We get successful left (liberal) gov't when the merchants unite with the peasants against the Church and aristocrats. We lose it when the peasants go back. That kind of still holds. What the right has to offer them besides playing to prejudices and fears is stability and order. And I think that's what still drives non-rich rightists.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well, if it was a simple question I would've likely known the answer already, right? An increase of 20% from low to high is definitely notable, but hard to see why one would need to be desperately worried. As you said, GINI is fairly abstract and there's no 1-to-1 link between somewhat higher GINI and starkly increased human suffering. The average person is way more rich now than in 1980, and human suffering has globally gone down.

With that said, there's also no reason I can see to try and intentionally get GINI higher. The fact that it's been at a lower number also proves that reducing it is entirely possible, which is what I expect would happen if relatively high GINI proves to be a problem. I wonder if the information age has mechanisms that causes GINI to trend upwards, or if it is strictly based on policy.

I agree with all this, TBH.

 

[brothir]

No one outside a few psychos like Vance and his circle puts it that way, though.

To borrow from Eisenhower: they are few and stupid.

We get successful left (liberal) gov't when the merchants unite with the peasants against the Church and aristocrats. We lose it when the peasants go back. That kind of still holds. What the right has to offer them besides playing to prejudices and fears is stability and order. And I think that's what still drives non-rich rightists.

My, what a bourgeoisie sentiment. The stability and order sentiment is correct, but I believe more precisely described as belonging. Especially nationalist sentiments center on a sense of belonging, which is intended to grant stability and order through identity.

 

[Sinister]

Yeah, I imagine you're more knowledgeable on the ins-and-outs of how to implement such taxes than I am so I'll defer to you here. That is the problem with the kind of wealth we're talking about. None the less, I do firmly believe something HAS to be done about it.

Slavoj Zizek famously said you can never capitalize your way out of capitalism. You'll never sell enough shoes to assure that everyone gets shoes.

 

[brothir]

I agree with all this, TBH.

I'm happy that I can be so agreeable. Must be a full moon or something.

 

[deviake]

Slavoj Zizek famously said you can never capitalize your way out of capitalism. You'll never sell enough shoes to assure that everyone gets shoes.

Sounds right to me. I think some form of Socialism needs to replace Capitalism but I can't outline every detail of that so I don't bother talking about it here for the most part, I just know the problem. Capitalism is like the xenomorph from Alien, no matter how much we try to contain it it's always ruthlessly trying to break the barriers and run amok. Ultimately, I don't think a system that's constantly trying to put a dollar sign on everything is particularly enlightened.

 

[brothir]

Slavoj Zizek famously said you can never capitalize your way out of capitalism. You'll never sell enough shoes to assure that everyone gets shoes.

That's crazy talk, and very nihilistic. Producing and selling shoes has generally been effective, I'd say exceedingly, in having people wear shoes.

It basically prompts the question of whether the goal is to dismantle capitalism, or have shoes widely and easily available for purchase. Because I don't think there's any guarantee that the former will result in a better version of the latter.

 

[Islam Imamate]

people making $1m ARE burdened with taxes.

I'm sure they're buckling under those taxes with their measly $1m/yr

It’s a “path”, yes. It’s not a guarantee, and it takes a decade plus to get there. I’m not saying cry for those people. But again, it’s not the automatic generational wealth people think. Kids can graduate from expensive universities without debt though…..

They're still wealthier than the vast majority of Americans and in practice it is generational wealth over the span of a typical career.

Not sure what you're getting at with the university comment.

 

[brothir]

Sounds right to me. I think some form of Socialism needs to replace Capitalism but I can't outline every detail of that so I don't bother talking about it here for the most part, I just know the problem. Capitalism is like the xenomorph from Alien, no matter how much we try to contain it it's always ruthlessly trying to break the barriers and run amok. Ultimately, I don't think a system that's constantly trying to put a dollar sign on everything is particularly enlightened.

Well, capitalism and the Enlightenment were birthed together. That's not coincidence. The problem isn't capitalism as much as right-wing populist waves that move against welfare measures, and more recently democracy as a whole.

 

[deviake]

That's crazy talk, and very nihilistic. Producing and selling shoes has generally been effective, I'd say exceedingly, in having people wear shoes.

It basically prompts the question of whether the goal is to dismantle capitalism, or have shoes widely and easily available for purchase. Because I don't think there's any guarantee that the former will result in a better version of the latter.

Well, capitalism and the Enlightenment were birthed together. That's not coincidence. The problem isn't capitalism as much as right-wing populist waves that move against welfare measures, and more recently democracy as a whole.

Capitalism being dismantled of course doesn't mean something better will take takes its place. Capitalism however, is a rabid beast that requires electric fences, cattle prods, heavy duty metal cages, and constant vigilance to keep its predatory nature contained, and like the proverbial horror movie beast, it always manages to get loose and wreak havoc. It's an improvement on feudalism but I don't buy the "end of history" sentiment. I don't have all the answers but I know the problem and I know that social programs from redistribution of wealth and labor organizing and democratic institutions are the only things that have protected anyone from that beast's thirst for blood. Without the state, Capitalism folds like a shitty submarine in deep water. It's in its nature to destroy itself. Hence, boom bust. That's not a stable system.