The issue here seems to just be the unequal distribution of wealth. There's nothing in principle wrong with it. — Michael

Yep, I agree. Sappy and Bitter Crank obviously don't like accumulations of wealth, but they have done precious little to rationally justify this dislike, apart from saying it's oppression, without being able to show how.

But I haven't given up hope yet, and if I am forced to make some compromises here and there along the way, then so be it. Certainly, I have not discarded the idea of government intervention, in some form or other. — Sapientia

I think a progressive tax rate, a decent minimum wage, anti-discrimination rules, and regulations for working conditions, environmental impact, and quality of goods is sufficient intervention.

You're dancing around the issue a bit. What do you think a 1% / 99% society would actually look like and would you be happy to live in it?



But @fdrake already did the legwork in terms of analysis on this and provided you with ample evidence of the negative effects of unequal distributions of wealth.

Yep, I agree. Sappy and Bitter Crank obviously don't like accumulations of wealth, but they have done precious little to rationally justify this dislike, apart from saying it's oppression, without being able to show how. — Agustino

I think a shift in perspective regarding the ultimate aim of life, like that outlined by Baden, is a necessary component of any compelling critique of your position.

If one assumes that creating optimal conditions for economic development - as manifested in things like entrepreneurial activity/success and overall economic growth - is the sine qua non of a happy life and a happy political community, then IMO advocates of unregulated (or less regulated) capitalism will win the argument since the free market does seem much better than its alternatives at things like allocating resources, maximizing efficiency and productivity, spurring on technological development, etc.

Nevertheless, there do seem to be some serious drawbacks - in addition to those already mentioned - to such an excessive preoccupation with monetary considerations and individual wealth accumulation: the narrowing down of relationships to instrumental ones with literally everything being reduced to the level of exploitable resource; a heightened level of envy and resentment among the masses against the 1% and a reciprocal fear of the the 99% on the part of the extremely wealthy, both of which erode important communal bonds transcending economic relationships; the role of education being entirely subordinated to this larger economic project at the expense of more 'elevated' interpretations of its function within the life of an individual and a community; individuals and groups perceiving each other as competitors rather than collaborators in their single-minded fixation on accumulating wealth; the highest cultural exemplars (which all aspire towards) not being the wisest, the most virtuous, the most noble, the most thoughtful/poetic/philosophical/artistically inspired, but rather the rich and the powerful (e.g. Donald Trump); etc. etc.

Hyperbole aside, this modern consumerist world which capitalism has created is debased in many ways, and that 'big picture' way of looking at it is important. I would also add, however, that forms of socialism or communism which do NOT challenge guiding assumptions concerning essentials aren't much better, other than the fact that they want to divide the pie in a more equitable way, which is a sentiment I can definitely appreciate.

I'm thinking of simple and basic questions like: what characterizes a 'successful' life? what's the proper aim of education beyond the technical training one undertakes to satisfy his or her material needs and, for the more ambitious, their aspirations for significant wealth? etc. I could be wrong about this, but it seems that a major element underlying our consumerist civilization is the widespread agreement, albeit tacit agreement for the most part, regarding the values and assumptions which dictate the way we think and act, the way we direct our energies and abilities.

I didn't articulate that very well, I'm afraid, but the reason I liked Baden's post so much is that he gets right to the heart of the matter about what kind of world he wants to live in and what he considers to be important; and unlike most people he doesn't take it for granted that material success (and what it can buy you) is the most important thing in life. Getting at capitalism at that base level - at the type of life which is held up as exemplary, at the type of human beings it produces, etc. - is precisely where it's most vulnerable IMO to thoughtful analysis.

I'm obviously biased, of course, and not nearly smart enough to become successful - i.e. wealthy and powerful - within this system as it exists. It's not complete hell, as I imagine Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia were, but I do believe that this planet could be much more hospitable than it currently is if we could somehow shift the way we understand ourselves and our world. These self-conceptions have changed historically, and significantly so, and there's no reason to believe they couldn't do so at some point in the future.

So the issue seems just as much (if not more) cultural and philosophical as it is economic. We could stop buying needless shit, we could start spending more time cultivating non-instrumental relationships with others (and 'nature,' however pathetic that sounds), we could start reading and thinking and appreciating things that are currently viewed as non-productive wastes of time since they don't typically provide us with financial payoff, etc.

That's a world I would like future generations to live in since I see it as being vastly superior to the one we inhabit now. Not all will agree with this largely negative assessment, obviously, but I don't think it's too far-fetched to assume that others may eventually come to find life in this world to be unsatisfying in many ways - inhuman and barbaric even.

You're dancing around the issue a bit. What do you think a 1% / 99% society would actually look like and would you be happy to live in it? — Baden

Kinda like what we have now? From here:

For the top one percent, incomes adjusted for inflation went up from $990,000 in 2009 to $1,360,000 in 2015, a 37-percent increase, according to Saez.

For the bottom 99 percent, incomes went up from $45,300 in 2009 to $48,800 in 2015, a 7.6-percent increase.

So that's £1,025,984 to £36,810. Remarkably close to my random example.

If the government were to pursue all wealth, which seems unlikely considering how many of the wealthy are in government, it would remove any incentive for innovation or hard work. — ProbablyTrue

That would not be true under what I have proposed. The incentive would be a proportionate reward. That would be an incentive for many. It might not be an incentive for a few wrongheaded people who believe that they're entitled to more than that - even as much as 99% - but so be it.

Yes, I’m right with you on this, we’ve got to extrapolate not only from present material circumstances but also political and social dynamics in order to get a clearer view of the bigger picture here. We can already see what happens when the rich leverage their political power to pull more and more resources their way, and that is that the benefits of increased technological and systems knowledge don't filter down into increased living standards for the majority in the proportionate way they should. And when you get to the point where technology is racing ahead at faster levels than ever but living standards are standing still or even reversing then something is seriously wrong. Where have the benefits gone? Why aren’t things getting better for everyone? I’m thinking here of the US in particular which made massive gains in personal, technological and social wealth in the first half of the century largely as a result of technological and, particularly, industrial progress, but which has now become exhibit A in how the rich can use advances, particularly in media, to gain control over a system and game it to their advantage. One simple example of this is the use of brand power which allows companies to distort the market and sell their stuff at an inflated price. Trivial on the surface maybe, but in order to do that, they need to distort us. Hence modern marketing. And when you extrapolate the use of tools like this out to a scenario where the richest 1% have 99% of the resources and consider what the privileged few would need to do to the rest of us and to society as a whole to get there then you begin to envisage the kind of dystopian reality I outlined. Not only that but you may also begin to envisage the opposite, the society we could have if we focused on creating for ourselves the circumstances in which we can flourish not primarily materially but in other ways. Which brings us to the next stage of analysis:

I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that a major component of our consumerist civilization's continuation is the widespread agreement, albeit tacit agreement for the most part, regarding the values and assumptions holding sway over the way we think and act, the way we direct our energies and abilities. — Erik

Very succinctly put. For example the questions: What is work? What is the goal of work? What is leisure? How does entertainment function? What kind of material goods is it desirable to have? are likely to yield very ideologically loaded answers if asked of most people. And the often superficial focus of conversations concerning political alternatives or the results of political interventions are a symptom of the deeper problem: We don’t even know how to imagine ourselves out of a consumerist lifestyle and we judge alternate proposed scenarios based on the underlying logic of the one we are presently stuck in. A recipe for stasis, for rearranging the deckchairs, or even worse poking more holes in the hull as Agu would seem to want.

So the issue seems just as much (if not more) cultural and philosophical as it is economic. We stop buying needless shit, start spending more of our time cultivating non-instrumental relationships with others (and 'nature,' however pathetic that sounds), start reading and thinking and appreciating things that are currently viewed as non-productive wastes of time since they don't typically provide us with financial payoff, etc. That's a world I would like future generations to live in, if human beings are even around for much longer, since I see it as being vastly superior to the one we inhabit now. — Erik

Exactly, material goods beyond those that provide for basic survival bring quickly diminishing returns in terms of happiness. Opportunities for learning and self-expression in terms of creativity and relationships are much more key. But we’re not focused on that enough. It’s as if we think we’re perpetually in danger of starvation or homelessness when we should have reached a level of technology whereby those concerns can be left behind and we can put our energies in that which is beyond the material.

Please cite it here. — Agustino

No. Cite it yourself if need be. I'm certain that you know what I'm referring to. I spoke about balance and proportion, I gave you analogies, and I have given you concrete examples. You just don't recognise as fairness or unfairness what I do, and there's only so much that I can do about that. You can lead a horse to water...

I think that your values are inconsistent, Agustino. Elsewhere, I have seen you praise family values, yet here, you praise the individual in spite of family values. You can't have your cake and eat it. Associating society, or a community, with family values, such as sharing and cooperation, is exemplified in my position, yet diminished in yours. Your position, in contrast, promotes selfishness - an attitude of "Every man for himself!". Instead of each person getting their fair share, the average person must fend for themselves and get what they're given, whilst those few who are able to exploit the system and reap the reward are at liberty to do so.

The top 1% do not yet own 99% of the wealth, which is the hypothetical of the OP. Not even close. It's more like 50%. So the question stands.

But fdrake already did the legwork in terms of analysis on this and provided you with ample evidence of the negative effects of unequal distributions of wealth. — Baden

Right, and we discussed in what regards he is right and in what regards he isn't. He's not right that if 1% owns 99% of the wealth it's necessarily bad. That 1% of the wealth left may be enough - hypothetically - for the 99% to be able to have a decent life.

If you ignore just about every factor except the purely economic. Use your imagination. Dig a little deeper.

The top 1% do not yet own 99% of the wealth, which is the hypothetical of the OP. Not even close. It's more like 50%. So the question stands. — Baden

Actually the OP is "Why It's Wrong For [the] 1% To Own As Much As [the] 99%". So they own 50%, not 99%.

Or at least that's how I read it.

Besides, I was addressing your criticism of my claim that "[it's] better for the 1% to have £1,000,000 and the 99% to have £30,000 than for everyone to have £20,000."

By that logic they could own any percent below 99% which would make the conversation pointless. Obey the spirit of the OP!!!

Besides, I was addressing your criticism of my claim that "[it's] better for the 1% to have £1,000,000 and the 99% to have £30,000 than for everyone to have £20,000." — Michael

Re your edit: OK, but I did specify (because I realized this did not amount to 1% / 99%) that it was the OP hypothetical I was attacking not so much the status quo. But seriously, that aside, what do you envision it would take to get us to 1% / 99% and would you be happy to live there provided your income was the same as it is now? And what else, if anything, do you think would change?

But seriously, that aside, what do you envision it would take to get us to 1% / 99% — Baden

I'm not an economist/mathematician, so I'm not sure. Is it even possible for the top 1% to own 99% of the wealth?

In practical terms I hope not, but I'm just asking you to look out your hypothetical window and at least imagine the ride there. Do you like what you see?

I don't see anything because I don't know what it would be like, or even if it's possible.

I feel like you may be being overly conservative with regards to your predictive ability based on knowledge of past and present trends, but I won't badger you.

No. Cite it yourself if need be. I'm certain that you know what I'm referring to. — Sapientia

No, I actually have no clue.

I spoke about balance and proportion, I gave you analogies, and I have given you concrete examples. — Sapientia

Yeah, and I asked you what does balance and proportion have to do with this? Why is it that things need to be proportionately distributed, and if they do, what does that mean? Does that mean equal? Maybe some do deserve to get a lot more than others.

You just don't recognise as fairness or unfairness what I do, and there's only so much that I can do about that. — Sapientia

I've just asked you to show me how it is unfair. You're just telling me that it is, you're not giving me any reasons why. You're just stomping your feet that it is. That's dogma, not thinking.

Elsewhere, I have seen you praise family values, yet here, you praise the individual in spite of family values. — Sapientia

Families are required to have a successful business. Who will run the business and continue your work after you die?

the average person — Sapientia

What stops your average person from starting a business and being successful? I want CONCRETE answers now, not bullshit 99% of businesses fail. I'm not concerned about that. I want to know why they fail, and hopefully amongst the reasons there will be a few which the average person cannot even access. That hasn't been my experience though.

You two, especially Sapientia, have some serious misunderstanding about what wealth is. — Agustino

Wealth, in the relevant sense, is a broad term relating to monetary worth, not what Agustino rigidly defines it to be. It can of course be measured, and it can of course be measured in various ways.

For example, in his very first post, Sapientia compares the yearly income of an individual paramedic with the total assets of the Hinduja family. Of course, that's like comparing apples and oranges, because the two are NOT the same. — Agustino

Yes, of course. I didn't compare like for like. But that doesn't matter, because we both know roughly what the results would be if I did, and it wouldn't make much of a difference. So, although I may have compared apples and oranges, you have committed the greater misdeed of making a fuss over nothing.

The questions you ask in the next part of your reply appear ill-considered. Why would the factory need to be shut down, the land sold, and so on? They can either keep what they own, and keep running the business, but play by the rules, or they can give it up, or they can have someone else take it out of their hands. There would be others who are competent enough and willing to take over. Why would you think that I expect the paramedics to run the business, rather than, at least initially, after the redistribution, receive a share of the profits thus far amassed? You seem to just be attacking a straw man.

You should check what their incomes are. — Agustino

That would be a waste of time. The chances that my expectations would be wildly mistaken is very slim. And if, despite all of the odds, that turned out to be the case, I would just pick a better example.

But I can tell you one thing for sure - they do deserve to take home many many many orders of magnitude more than a single paramedic. — Agustino

No, they don't, but these are just our respective opinions. Yours is no more objective than mine. Perhaps they deserve to take home more than a paramedic - that could be argued, at least. But that they deserve to take home as much as 99% - that is untenable.

He saves lives by relying on instruments created by people like the Hinduja families, cars, oil, phones, etc. — Agustino

The Hinduja family would be proportionately rewarded. The Hinduja family are replaceable. If the Hinduja family were not willing to work under the system I propose, then the Hinduja family would be replaced. This isn't a negotiation.

, @Baden

Right, and we discussed in what regards he is right and in what regards he isn't. He's not right that if 1% owns 99% of the wealth it's necessarily bad. That 1% of the wealth left may be enough - hypothetically - for the 99% to be able to have a decent life.

What actually happened in the discussion was that I left when you started saying statistics can't be applied to individuals. There's no such thing as an income distribution, 1% can't own the money of 99% because they're statistics and don't apply to individuals. The ratio of the minimum wage to big mac index doesn't mean anything for people's lives because statistics can't be applied to individuals. The amount of money lost per year in a country due to tax avoidance doesn't matter because it's a statistic and statistics don't apply to individuals.

:-} don't make me laugh. You clearly do understand the way in which statistics do apply to individuals and they ways in which they don't.

I understand it quite well, statistics apply to individuals insofar as they support your arguments, and they do not apply to individuals to the extent that they do not support your arguments.

Wealth, in the relevant sense, is a broad term relating to monetary worth, not what Agustino rigidly defines it to be. It can of course be measured, and it can of course be measured in various ways. — Sapientia

Money is a fictive commodity though. It only gets its value because we agree, collectively, to give it value and to respect that value in order to facilitate trade with each other. Without money, I would only be able to give you my corn for your wheat and so on so forth.

What is important is the real productive capacities and distribution networks that underly money. That is what real wealth is. And it's not because I define it that way, rather I define it that way because that's what my analysis reveals wealth to be. If you understand that money is fictive - that it gets its value only because we collectively agree to give it value and respect that value for the purpose of trading more easily - then you perceive at once that something isn't valuable because it is worth a lot of money, BUT RATHER it is worth a lot of money BECAUSE it is valuable. So that value is the underlying kernel, the inner essence of money as Karl (or Hegel) would say.

But that doesn't matter, because we both know roughly what the results would be if I did, and it wouldn't make much of a difference. — Sapientia

No, no, it wouldn't make much difference, just of the order of a couple of 1000s :-}

16,000 million vs 30K
50 million vs 30K

Right. No big difference.

but play by the rules — Sapientia

What are the rules?

There would be others who are competent enough and willing to take over. Why would you think that I expect the paramedics to run the business, rather than, at least initially, after the redistribution, receive a share of the profits thus far amassed? — Sapientia

Why would it be fair for the paramedics to receive a share of the profits of a business that they do not run and are not involved in? :s - so basically you have these people who do almost 0 for those factories, and yet they get to have a part of the profits... I cannot see how that is fair.

That would be a waste of time. The chances that my expectations would be wildly mistaken is very slim. And if, despite all of the odds, that turned out to be the case, I would just pick a better example. — Sapientia

So if you were mistaken, then in this particular case it would be okay to let them have so much wealth right?

The Hinduja family would be proportionately rewarded. The Hinduja family are replaceable. If the Hinduja family were not willing to work under the system I propose, then the Hinduja family would be replaced. This isn't a negotiation. — Sapientia

Everything in society is some sort of negotiation, if we don't negotiate then we're effectively at war. Negotiation prevents conflicts which can lead to a lot more damage. And the wealthy can negotiate as much as the poor for that matter. It seems that you imagine yourself to be somewhat like Putin, walking into town, meeting the billionaire (Oleg Deripaska), and telling him what to do or otherwise...


But even Putin negotiates. When someone runs a business, they know all the ins and outs of it. Every business is different, it's not like anyone else has, at the time, the same expertise that the Hinduja family has in running their business. They know everything about it. So it's stupid to lose their talent and ability at running it on your side.

I understand it quite well, statistics apply to individuals insofar as they support your arguments, and they do not apply to individuals to the extent that they do not support your arguments. — fdrake

No, they only apply to individuals in-so-far as you don't know what you're talking about.

Quite frankly, you're not worth my time with this nonsense.

If you cannot see that you're equivocating on two different notions of statistics, that is your problem.

If I take 1 billion people and see that the average life risk of lung cancer is X%, then that doesn't necessarily apply to me as an individual (so long as I don't smoke, I live an active lifestyle, not exposed to radon gas, etc. etc.)

Now if I take a group of products and see how much their price increases on average, then in-so-far as I buy those products, that price increase (or inflation) applies to me and any individuals equally.

There are two different notions of statistics there. In one case, there are underlying causes which lead to lung cancer, which have ZERO to do with your particular statistic, and a lot to do with the individual (whether they smoke like a snake, etc.) . In the other case, the underlying cause leading to your money's devaluation actually is the price increase observed statistically.

Now stop wasting my time.

You're completely forgetting the application of base rates. Also your claim that a phenomenon has to be 'truly random' to have statistics applied to its study is just false. Model fits from experiments in physics follow the same principles as ones which are used to model asset returns and goods prices.

So, for base rates: if you're healthy and don't smoke, your probability of smoking is a downward adjustment from the base rate - but still pretty close to it. P(you get cancer) is proportional to P(you get cancer given base rate)*P(base rate). In a similar manner, P(you commit a crime given that you're in a ghetto) is proportional to P(you live in a ghetto given you commit a crime)*P(crime base rate). I'm not conflating 'different notions of statistics' at all - you're ignorant of how to manipulate probabilities. If you were a mine worker, your probability of lung cancer would be an upwards adjustment of the base rate.

The group of products has a change in price, which is also modelled stochastically (like with a GARCH process for financial assets) when it's modelled at all. Same notion of statistics.

You getting cancer given that you're healthy is (generates, really) exactly the same type of random variable as you getting cancer.

Of course, none of this will be convincing to you, that's why I stepped away.

Supplementary post: declaring that some statistics don't apply to individuals is essentially flipping the table we're sitting around to discuss this. Every part of the discussion depends on properties of aggregates of people - specific statistics - and their relationship to each-other. Making some parts of statistical thinking 'off limits' has the effect of removing the relevance of everything we're discussing to the individual. A prosaic way of putting it would be that the aggregate properties of people provide base rates for their actions, and their individual choices in effect modify the base rate up or down. This is why there are people who don't commit crimes in very high crime areas, but how nevertheless it's still a high crime area despite this individual's choices.

The way in which aggregate properties of societies constrain individuals is exactly what we're discussing. To say that the statistics don't apply on an individual level is to change the terms of the analysis - committing a pernicious category error.

I hope you surprise me by re-evaluating your position on how statistics are relevant for ascertaining what it's like for people to live in societies.

Also your claim that a phenomenon has to be 'truly random' to have statistics applied to its study is just false. — fdrake

I never claimed that :s . Either you start representing what I say truthfully, or there's no point discussing.

Model fits from experiments in physics follow the same principles as ones which are used to model asset returns and goods prices. — fdrake

Yeah, so what?

So, for base rates: if you're healthy and don't smoke, your probability of smoking is a downward adjustment from the base rate - but still pretty close to it. P(you get cancer) is proportional to P(you get cancer given base rate)*P(base rate). In a similar manner, P(you commit a crime given that you're in a ghetto) is proportional to P(you live in a ghetto given you commit a crime)*P(crime base rate). I'm not conflating 'different notions of statistics' at all - you're ignorant of how to manipulate probabilities. If you were a mine worker, your probability of lung cancer would be an upwards adjustment of the base rate. — fdrake

I don't see what this has to do with anything else. This is just obfuscation. For example:

P(lung cancer | ~smoker ) = P(~smoker | lung cancer) x P(lung cancer) / P(~smoker)

That's true. So what? Of course you can calculate a specific probability that applies to you by and large. But that requires that you analyse the particular features of your own situation, not that you look at what generally happens. There surely might be such a thing as a base rate, or there may just be our lack of knowledge of what causes those things - so we stick a number on it, and that remains the number until whatever causes that thing changes.

You getting cancer given that you're healthy is (generates, really) exactly the same type of random variable as you getting cancer. — fdrake

No, it doesn't mean it IS that, but it can be modelled as that. That's a big big difference. The map is not the territory. I'm interested to get to know the territory, not approximations on the map.

Supplementary post: declaring that some statistics don't apply to individuals is essentially flipping the table we're sitting around to discuss this. Every part of the discussion depends on properties of aggregates of people - specific statistics - and their relationship to each-other. — fdrake

Yeah I want to flip the tables, since there is free will when it comes to human behaviour, hence why there is moral agency and responsibility for one's actions.

No, it doesn't mean it IS that, but it can be modelled as that. That's a big big difference. The map is not the territory. I'm interested to get to know the territory, not approximations on the map.

The statistics are part of the map. They're like signposts, signalling and quantifying relationships in the territory.