So they just move into a ready made factory? Do they build a factory or buy it from someone?
— Brett

Either, but in either case whoever actually builds the factory should get the full payment paid for the factory. — Pfhorrest

What I was getting at, which probably was not made clear enough, is that if someone or a collective of workers is going to buy or build a factory then they’re going to have to borrow money. Most likely they’ll go to a financial institution. Whose money are they borrowing that’s sitting there in the bank earning interest, where did the money come from? Why is there that excess money sitting there?

I think this is interesting in relation to the OP; “Who are the 1%”, which I think went off the rails a bit, but it made me look and think about just who those people are. There were posts about them being parasites, etc, and destructive to society, which is probably true in different ways. But reading about these people it seems to me that ambition is the driving force. Everything, hard work, buying and selling, long term planning, etc. serves that ambition. Money is not really the issue, except maybe as a measure of the level of success of that ambition.

So this ambition. What else is it but the effort to fence off the abyss? Maybe the most extreme of attempts. And look at the damage. I don’t think there is a viable alternative to Capitalism, but I do think the reasons that drive it are the efforts to avoid the truth. Naturally no good will come from it.

Something has to account for the state of humanity. I don’t see that your awareness, connection and collaboration comes anywhere close to this.

What you’re competing for is the capacity to exist on your own terms, — Possibility

As opposed to your structured concept of being, I don’t see that Schopenhauer is dictating his own terms, if anything there are no terms, and those you do choose are existential acts. Then the question is are those actions authentic? Many are not, many are made to fence off the abyss. Many actions are carried out to justify previous actions. Many actions bolster cultural norms.

Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless. That to me seems to require constant effort, or conflict, which is a battle against this threat, which is, in my view, competition. The alternative is to just “be” in the Buddhist sense of the Will creates suffering. If not then in a way you are competing with yourself, against the knowledge reason gives you, that there is nothing.

Most of the time, most of us behave because we understand following group rules. — Bitter Crank

And what about the ambitious? The rebels, the innovators who want to do things differently?

I don’t like the state of things in terms of wages, costs and community anymore than most people. But I think you’re going to need a lot of social coercion to manage this dream.

Edit: and you and Pfhorrest have drawn me off topic.

This would obviously be in the form of better wages, which I would agree with, but the capital has be accumulated first. Who produces it?
— Brett

The people who do the work produce it, — Pfhorrest

So they just move into a ready made factory? Do they build a factory or buy it from someone?

the rich are evil — Bitter Crank

That’s a big statement in relation to the people I listed.

How would you enforce this, how would you manage human behaviour?

Yes your post makes sense. But I think it has be taken into account that this is theoretical. The world won’t operate that way and once again the profit motive will dominate, competition from others and inflated prices for all goods will grow.

either the workers sell the product at the inflated price to other workers and keep the profit for themselves, and all the other workers do the same, so all the workers end up with more money from their increased wages; — Pfhorrest

No they don’t because they all have to pay the inflated price, which diminishes the value of their wages. If my maths is right they’ll end up with nothing but their hourly rate and no profit.

or else the workers sell at the production price to other workers, who end up keeping more of their money because of those those savings. Either way, the workers get more money. — Pfhorrest

Same here, no profit.

The people who do the work produce it, just as they do now; — Pfhorrest

They produce the product but they don’t produce the profit. The profit comes from the difference between production and sale price. Which means you need markets. To equal the wealth the 1% produce the product would have to be sold at the inflated price. To who? To the 99%.

If the capital of the world was spread around more or less evenly, then borrowing from those who have control of the capital wouldn't need to be a thing. — Pfhorrest

This would obviously be in the form of better wages, which I would agree with, but the capital has be accumulated first. Who produces it?

They would be better off because they would possess the surplus value they produced. — Bitter Crank

To achieve that they would need to do what 1% did, which is build a business from scratch and produce the same wealth that so many resent the 1% having. They cannot just take over a business nor take the money from the 1% to share out. You can only take the wealth to share out once. After that you have to produce it yourself.

And if there were only workers and no owners then you would, as you say, have a socialist economy which has never worked anywhere. So that wealth would not be generated to share out.

Someone commented on what a miserable life the rich live. And it’s true, it takes a lot of man hours and focus to succeed, it’s not conducive to family life and maybe not for your own health. If the 90% want that wealth then the load will be theres.

So it seems to me you’re back at the beginning.

There are a lot of things that are wrong and unfair but I don’t see how destroying the 1%, branding them as parasites or robbing them of their wealth will change things.

I can help too.

The critical problem is that in heavily concentrating wealth among one to ten percent of the population the remaining 90% are starved for wealth. — Bitter Crank

Supposedly the 90% are starved for wealth because 1% has it. But let’s assume the 1% didn't gain it, does that mean the 90% would have it instead? Where would it come from?

understanding the social/political/economic milieu in which they exist. — Bitter Crank

Yes and most of us do not live in that milieu. A lot of us don’t want to, a lot can’t and a lot fall before they get there. Hard work may not get you there, but lazing around certainly won’t.

Inheriting wealth; lucky for some, but still easy to lose it all through human failure. This is very Randian of course but still true. Money doesn’t mean success.

Edit: what I mean is having money doesn’t mean you’ll be successful.

I would say ambition is more a determing factor than conscientiousness. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Many on this OP regard the 1% as a blight on the land, parasites and responsible for the hardships of the poorer members of the community.

So far as I can see the driving force behind these people is a powerful work ethic and ambition.

If you’re going to control these people to stop them making so much money because it’s wrong then you’re going to have to control the work ethic and ambition. How do we do that? How do we set limits and controls? Are you going to say it’s illegal to work that hard or that your ambitions are immoral so you must give up your ambitions? At what point do you cross the line into immorality? Who sets these parameters?

Wealth and income are closely related, but maybe not inseparable. — Bitter Crank

I had made a correction on my post about this as an edit. I’m never sure which is the best: an edit or a new post.

Frugality is an underrated virtue, — Bitter Crank

I have a bit of a problem with some posts that keep falling back on a moral position in regard to these people, not that I’m suggesting that of you. The OP as wondering about who exactly they are “and if there are trends in their philosophies or religious outlooks.”

Some have insisted that

the 1% aren't self-made but inherit their wealth — apokrisis

or

All I know is their crap smells the same as ours — Outlander

Well many are self made, and even if they inherited wealth what’s wrong with that?

And if their crap smells the same as ours then we’re just like them.

How can anyone make judgements about these people without understanding who they are, specially here on a philosophy forum? Why would anyone do that? Why insist that

They are societal parasites. — StreetlightX

when evidence suggests that’s not always the case.

For those who might like to enlarge their minds a little:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2020/06/08/scientific-study-luxury-is-not-what-motivates-rich-people-to-become-rich/?sh=7df21c33200c

“ Almost all of the interviewees, including those over the age of 70, regularly worked and devoted a significant amount of time to their professional activities. And this was despite the fact that none of them had to work for financial reasons.”

The OP is about wealth rather than income.

Income is going to be largely meritocratic and deserved you would hope. But wealth goes to being part of the rentier class.

So apples and oranges. — apokrisis

The OP is actually about who these people are.

But anyway, wealth and income are not apples and oranges, they are inseparable.

Edit: actually I’ll correct myself here: “ Wealth can be contrasted to income in that wealth is a stock and income is a flow, and it can be seen in either absolute or relative terms.” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wealth.asp

That the wealthy don't universally, or even predominantly have the positive traits you ascribed to them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn’t think we were talking about the wealthy. I thought it was about the so called 1%, who, yes, are wealthy, but there are lots of wealthy people out there, all very different: conscientious, lazy, deceitful, charitable and so on.

So we’re talking about a specific group of people who are so wealthy that they are regarded as beyond wealthy. I put up some of their names. I put up what I would regard as personality traits that may be behind their success, I gave some history of the lives and I also put up what are probably not the best aspects of their personalities.

Now to be that successful, whether you inherit money or not, you would need to have many of those positive traits I put up. Hard work is the one trait everyone who succeeds has. I don’t think that’s debatable.

Certainly, they might embody those traits more on average, but it's probably not a huge difference between the upper middle class and the top 1%. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly, some of these traits are common in all successful people at all levels, from a small store to someone like Bill Gates. Having money doesn’t mean you are one of those people. Plenty of people lose their wealth.

I would say ambition is more a determing factor than conscientiousness. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fine, call it ambition if you like, but don’t call it criminal.

Personal experience would show you. I can assure you, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can show me what? I have no idea what you’re referring to.

This isn’t admiration. It’s an attempt to work out what sort of people they are. I also posted the negative aspects of such people.

Your general stance of seeming to think that the super-rich got there by meritocratic means would suggest a likelihood that you don’t believe that there are governmental factors systemically favoring the already-rich, and so that you are probably okay with and support the systemic factors that do in fact favor the already-rich, like the enforcement of contracts of rent and interest. — Pfhorrest

You need to show me instead of telling me.

I’m responding to the OP itself, which is who are the 1%?

I wonder if anyone has read or researched extensively who exactly these people are and if there are trends in their philosophies or religious outlooks. — Xtrix

It might be interesting to consider Calvinism

“ The Protestant work ethic, the Calvinist work ethic,[1] or the Puritan work ethic[2] is a work ethic concept in theology, sociology, economics and history which emphasizes that hard work, discipline, and frugality[3] are a result of a person's subscription to the values espoused by the Protestant faith, particularly Calvinism.

The phrase was initially coined in 1904–1905[a] by Max Weber in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.[4] Weber asserted that Protestant ethics and values along with the Calvinist doctrine of asceticism and predestination gave birth to capitalism.” Wikipedia

All I know is their crap smells the same as ours and are ultimately subject to the same laws governing life and death. — Outlander

Well that doesn’t tell you anything, does it?

Yes.

Carlos Slim

“ Slim was born on January 28, 1940, in Mexico City,[10] to Julián Slim Haddad (born Khalil Salim Haddad Aglamaz) and Linda Helú Atta, both Maronite Christians from Lebanon.[11][12][13] He decided at a young age that he wanted to be a businessman,[4][14] and received business lessons from his father, who taught him finance, management and accounting, teaching him how to read financial statements as well as the importance of keeping accurate financial records.[15]

At the age of 11, Slim invested in a government savings bond that taught him about the concept of compound interest. He eventually saved every financial and business transaction he made into a personal ledger book, which he still keeps.[16] At the age of 12, he made his first stock purchase, of shares in a Mexican bank.[17] By the age of 15, Slim had become a shareholder in Mexico's largest bank.[9] At the age of 17, he earned 200 pesos a week working for his father's company.[18] He went on to study civil engineering at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where he also concurrently taught algebra and linear programming.[19][20][21]

Though Slim was a civil engineering major, he also displayed an interest in economics. He took economics courses in Chile once he finished his engineering degree.[14] Graduating as a civil engineering major, Slim has stated that his mathematical ability and his background of linear programming was a key factor in helping him gain an edge in the business world, especially when reading financial statements.[15][22][23]” Wikipedia

Sheldon Gary Adelson was born in 1933 and grew up in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, the son of Sarah (née Tonkin) and Arthur Adelson. His father was a cab driver[10] His father's family was of Ukrainian Jewish and Lithuanian Jewish ancestry.[11] His mother immigrated from England, and Adelson claimed that his grandfather was a Welsh coal miner.[12] His father drove a taxi, and his mother ran a knitting shop.[13]

An entrepreneur is born with the mentality to take risks, though there are several important characteristics: courage, faith in yourself, and above all, even when you fail, to learn from failure and get up and try again.
–Sheldon Adelson, 2013[14]
He started his business career at the age of 12, when he borrowed $200 from his uncle (or $2,740 in 2017 dollars) and purchased a license to sell newspapers in Boston.[15] Aged 16 in 1948, he then borrowed $10,000 (or $102,349 in 2017 dollars) from his uncle to start a candy-vending-machine business.[16] He attended the City College of New York, but did not graduate,[17] and attended trade school in a failed attempt to become a court reporter, then subsequently joined the army.[18]

After being discharged from the army, he established a business selling toiletry kits, then started another business named De-Ice-It which sold a chemical spray to help clear frozen windshields.[19] In the 1960s, he started a charter tours business.[10] He soon became a millionaire, although by his 30s he had built and lost his fortune twice. Over the course of his business career, Adelson has created almost 50 of his own businesses, making him a serial entrepreneur.[20] Wikipedia

On the basis that someone might be interested in who these people are I took one name at random.

“ Larry Ellison was born in New York City, to an unwed Jewish mother.[5][6][7][8] His biological father was an Italian-American United States Army Air Corps pilot. After Ellison contracted pneumonia at the age of nine months, his mother gave him to her aunt and uncle for adoption.[8] He did not meet his biological mother again until he was 48.[9]

Ellison moved to Chicago's South Shore, then a middle-class neighborhood. He remembers his adoptive mother as warm and loving, in contrast to his austere, unsupportive, and often distant adoptive father, who had chose the name Ellison to honor his point of entry into the United States, Ellis Island. Louis Ellison was a government employee who had made a small fortune in Chicago real estate, only to lose it during the Great Depression.[8]

Although Ellison was raised in a Reform Jewish home by his adoptive parents, who attended synagogue regularly, he remained a religious skeptic. Ellison states: "While I think I am religious in one sense, the particular dogmas of Judaism are not dogmas I subscribe to. I don't believe that they are real. They're interesting stories. They're interesting mythology, and I certainly respect people who believe these are literally true, but I don't. I see no evidence for this stuff." At age thirteen, Ellison refused to have a bar mitzvah celebration.[10] Ellison says that his fondness for Israel is not connected to religious sentiments, but rather due to the innovative spirit of Israelis in the technology sector.[11]

Ellison attended South Shore High School in Chicago[12] and later was admitted to University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and was enrolled as a premed student.[12] At Illinois, he was named science student of the year[13][14] but later withdrew without taking final exams after his sophomore year, because his adoptive mother had just died. After spending the summer of 1966 in California, he then attended the University of Chicago for one term, studying physics and mathematics.[12] He did not take any exams and at Chicago he first encountered computer design. In 1966, aged 22, he moved to Berkeley, California.” Wikiodia

This is not hard to do.

True, but still interesting. — Xtrix

Actually it’s not interesting, it’s the same thing over and over.

I didn’t assume that just because of that question, but because of the impression I get from your other posts in this thread. — Pfhorrest

Like what?

As for your list -- I was thinking more in terms of ideologies and values, not necessarily the character attributes you mention. — Xtrix

Well we have to start somewhere don’t we? How can we determine their ideologies and values unless we identify them and look at their background?

What makes you say that? — Xtrix

What do you mean?

In an ideal world, no, but you’re missing the point: I’m against “government regulation” that you’re probably in favor of, government action that benefits those who already have excess property — Pfhorrest

One of the constant problems on this forum is that a question is taken as some form of entrapment, or by asking it I’m saying I support the thing I ask about.

Just take it as a genuine question about whether you think it’s a good idea or not. Assuming I’m “ probably in favour of government action that benefits those who already have excess property” because I ask the question is very presumptive and obviously unproductive.

Yes, I would agree that a free market is the closest to a natural economy. Do you think there should be government regulation?

The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands is not only unnatural — Pfhorrest

It may be dishonest, it might be destructive, but how is it “unnatural?

Some things about them we may not be impressed with.

1: They make decisions in a pragmatic way that may hurt others: what do I need, what don’t I need, how do I get what I want?

2: They measure all actions, all success, in terms of profits

3: They may at times bend the rules to achieve their objectives

4: They probably lie and deceive often

5: Their egos are all powerful

6: They view politics as merely a tool to achieve their objective

7: They’re never satisfied

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

It seems to me that everyone’s done everything except address the OP.

1: They’re very hard workers

2: They’re very good a setting an objective and then making a plan to get there

3: They’re very good at projecting into the future

4: They’re very adaptable

5: Many of them are very innovative

6: They’re very good at choosing people to work with, understanding them, motivating them

7: They inspire people within their circle

8: They have a through understanding of the world they’re operating in

9: They’re very good at networking

10: They create opportunities for others

Edit: Actually ignore number ten, that’s not about who they are.

Except for those 1 percenters who make their money by trading in currencies and the like, — Bitter Crank

I know they trade, but is this really how they made their wealth? And have we named them yet?