Billionaires - Right or Wrong

Neville Kneville said:
Moral or not, if you try to limit the wealth of these people, they will in future, move all their money & invest in countries which don't.

Nobody needs that much money but there is little can be done about it.
Click to expand...

TLDR: basicly the paradigm shift is that nowadays for most the rich don't invest with their own money but with the money of the taxpayer trough the fractional banking system. When it goes wrong the poppulation pays, when it goes well the rich take most of the gains. The fractional banking system actually makes the capitalist redundant though in that it doesn't require for capital to be concentrated within individuals to make large scale economic investment possible.


The actual meat of this debate is a paradigm shift in the way investment happens in the world looking at the rise and prominence of fractional reserve banking. Youre reply is the only one i found that that goes towards the meat however also in a way to express the misconceptions that exactly are at the base of the modern debate.

Basicly the paradigm shift is like this: It used to be so that all banks were private and there was no central bank, and that nations had a mint which basicly tied their coin to the "gold standard". In this enviroment there was a perceived need for people that could accumulate wealth trough skill and then reinvest it in the economy or otherwise it would always be hard to get the required investment capital toghether to be able to make the economy grow.

What thus changed is that we stopped using that gold standard for logical reasons within monetary thinking, we created central banks and a fractional reserve system that nowadays mainly works with "electronic money" ,aka nothing tangable or limited physicly in volume.

As a result, the modern banking system basicly would enable any goverment to to create the required amount of money out of thin air in order to invest and make the economy grow provided that there are unexploited economic resources around that could be exploited "profitably" with that required capital, because at that point the new risen volume of economic activity would not result in inflation.

BUT the very important thing to note in regards to this is that in the modern banking system "were all in it toghether", a fact that was made painfully clear when the credit crisis happened and that the taxpayer had to fork up the dough to save the banks so that those banks would not fail even for the paltry reserves that at any case exists. AKA, in a way the people were propping up the banks so that it would not be too obvious that those banks certaintly don't have the money around that people think exists in their accounts. Or basicly people's taxpayers money was used to shore up the hidden emptyness in their own bank accounts.

Thus basicly the reality is that the majority of investment in the world is done by the taxpayer, by you and me, rather than the capitalist. This lies purely with the extemely riskfull nature of the fractional banking system and the volume of capital it provides for capitalists to toy with.The poppulation takes that risk, as they are going to pay when it goes wrong, but the "capitalists" will take far more of the gain withought taking those risks because they have the easy acces to the capital within people's acounts. Indeed when the credit crisis happened many of those failed bankers got to keep their rediculous bonusses, and that basicly again boiled down to basicly making the taxpayer pay to enrich those.

The world has thus changed in that we don't need "capitalists" rather than simply "managers". If we only need managers, then i wouldn't get why they would need to earn so much more than a person with a similar tier of degree. Or why even a small minority of people in this world would need to own/control the majority of the economy which is not only unnessecary but also very dangerous in a way. Let what were the rich in the past work for a more reasonable "wage" rather than they would be able to rack in such things like capital gains where the poppulation takes the risk of the capital investment.
 
Last edited:
FlemishDuck said:
TLDR: basicly the paradigm shift is that nowadays for most the rich don't invest with their own money but with the money of the taxpayer trough the fractional banking system. When it goes wrong the poppulation pays, when it goes well the rich take most of the gains. The fractional banking system actually makes the capitalist redundant though in that it doesn't require for capital to be concentrated within individuals to make large scale economic investment possible.


The actual meat of this debate is a paradigm shift in the way investment happens in the world looking at the rise and prominence of fractional reserve banking. Youre reply is the only one i found that that goes towards the meat however also in a way to express the misconceptions that exactly are at the base of the modern debate.

Basicly the paradigm shift is like this: It used to be so that all banks were private and there was no central bank, and that nations had a mint which basicly tied their coin to the "gold standard". In this enviroment there was a perceived need for people that could accumulate wealth trough skill and then reinvest it in the economy or otherwise it would always be hard to get the required investment capital toghether to be able to make the economy grow.

What thus changed is that we stopped using that gold standard for logical reasons within monetary thinking, we created central banks and a fractional reserve system that nowadays mainly works with "electronic money" ,aka nothing tangable or limited physicly in volume.

As a result, the modern banking system basicly would enable any goverment to to create the required amount of money out of thin air in order to invest and make the economy grow provided that there are unexploited economic resources around that could be exploited "profitably" with that required capital, because at that point the new risen volume of economic activity would not result in inflation.

BUT the very important thing to note in reards to this is that in the modern banking system "were all in it toghether", a fact that was made painfully clear when the credit crisis happened and that the taxpayer had to fork up the dough to save the banks so that those banks would not fail even for the paltry reserves that at any case exists. AKA, in a way the people were propping up the banks so that it would not be too obvious that those banks certaintly don't have the money around that people think exists in their accounts. Or basicly people's taxpayers money was used to shore up the hidden emptyness in their own bank accounts.

Thus basicly the reality is that the majority of investment in the world is done by the taxpayer, by you and me, rather than the capitalist. This lies purely with the extemely riskfull nature of the fractional banking system.The poppulation takes that risk, as they are going to pay when it goes wrong, but the "capitalists" will take far more of the gain withought taking those risks because they have the easy acces to the capital within people's acounts. Indeed when the credit crisis happened many of those failed bankers got to keep their rediculous bonusses, and that basicly again boiled down to basicly making the taxpayer pay to enrich those.

The world has thus changed in that we don't need "capitalists" rather than simply "managers". If we only need managers, then i wouldn't get why they would need to earn so much more than a person with a similar tier of degree. Or why even a small minority of people in this world would need to own/control the majority of the economy which is not only unnessecary but also very dangerous in a way. Let what were the rich in the past work for a more reasonable "wage" rather than they would be able to rack in such things like capital gains where the poppulation takes the risk of the capital investment.
Click to expand...
Your English has come on leaks and bounds in the last couple of weeks....
 
I suppose in an ideal world you want billionaires to be paying vast amounts of tax, I would suggest 75%.
The problem is the vast majority would use different tax avoidance schemes and even if the money did get paid would anyone trust the Government to invest it where needed?

The whole world is morally bankrupt in my sweeping generalisation.
 
inbetween said:
Dyson employs over 12,000 people.

The richest man in the world owns Amazon who employ 27,500 in the UK.

I don't understand why some people are so against Brexit in terms of the economic impact but they are completely for punitive actions against rich people/companies which will cost people their jobs?
Click to expand...
Envy
 
I think that various new age models of economic thinking could come to defeat the capitalists at a game of economic effeciency or even control, but then one also considers that capitalism is ultimatly a system "backed by weapons". I don't think the wealthy elite will continue to exist for ever, but i doubt they will go out withought a significant bang and some of them might be planning to land the first big punch just aswell.

abu13 said:
The problem is the vast majority would use different tax avoidance schemes and even if the money did get paid would anyone trust the Government to invest it where needed?
Click to expand...

A new age aproach to tackling tax evasion might be to demand up the required tax in the form of "corvee labor". Not sure if many of those rich would choose avoidance over that depending on their domestication.

As to how the goverment invest it: the goverment can give the money to independant managers working within a competitive system and for a wage. At that point getting the required managers to do the job would just be a function of setting the right wages for the right skills but that wouldn't nessecarily translate in the wealth that the rich are accumulating now for sitting on manager positions and/or even owning a good chunk of the company. That is to say, in that case the goverment gives the capital to skillfull managers for investment, but they retain the ownership of the bussiness regardless, the managers only get a bigger wage if they prove to have the merrit.

Or basicly: hardcore competitive meritocracy, more so than capitalism would argue to be. Afterall, 75% of the rich even downright just inherited their wealth rather than earning it on their own accord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.