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

The general trend is the 1% aren't self-made but inherit their wealth and social advantage. So personal qualities or broader outlooks are pretty irrelevant. Better off considering the accidents of their birth.

Net worth for the top 1% starts at around $10MM while it's around $1MM for the top 10%. Plenty of them are self-made, I think most millionaires in the US are self-made (if i could recall that figure is around 80%.)

In the 1% you certainly have successful people but I'd hardly call someone with a net worth of $10MM one of the "masters of the universe." IMO there's no a huge difference between someone with a net worth of like $3-5MM and one with a net worth of like $10MM. 1%ers often have like 3 homes across the country.

At 9 figures I'd imagine things get pretty insane.

I grew up in the top 10%. I know some 1%ers. I certainly don't know anyone beyond that.

"Who are the 1%?"

Obviously @StreetlightX.

As far as the US concerned, it is believe one thing and do another.....

Many Americans strongly believe the U.S. is a "Land of Opportunity" that offers every child an equal chance at social and economic mobility. That Americans rise from humble origins to riches, has been called a "civil religion", "the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored",[14] and part of the American identity (the American Dream.

But then....

Intergenerational immobility versus economic inequality in 2012. (Countries closest to the axis in the left bottom have the highest levels of socio-economic equality and socio-economic mobility)

(to the tune of “We’re Number One!”) We’re not the worst! We’re not the worst! We’re not the worst!

Many Americans strongly believe the U.S. is a "Land of Opportunity" that offers every child an equal chance at social and economic mobility. That Americans rise from humble origins to riches, has been called a "civil religion", "the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored",[14] and part of the American identity (the American Dream.

I've long felt that this view of the American dream is kind of a straw-man. I don't know anyone in their right mind who'd believe that every child has an equal chance of economic and social mobility. I mean maybe in the abstract everyone has some chance, but an equal chance? In any case it's easy to argue against such fantastical positions.

tergenerational immobility versus economic inequality in 2012. (Countries closest to the axis in the left bottom have the highest levels of socio-economic equality and socio-

That's an interesting chart, but honestly comparing America to Denmark is a little silly. Denmark is a largely homogenous country of around 5 million. I live in one of the smallest states in the country and our population is 6 million.

In any case it's easy to argue against such fantastical positions. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. With another reasonable person. :up:

That's an interesting chart, but honestly comparing America to Denmark is a little silly. Denmark is a largely homogenous country of around 5 million. I live in one of the smallest states in the country and our population is 6 million. — BitconnectCarlos

So good political structure doesn't scale? You could fix the comparison by combining all the Scandinavian-style social democracies and maybe subsetting that against a matching sample of the most go-getting individualist US states.

It is not that economic meritocracy doesn't exist in the US. The argument is that the US has allowed itself to become a lot less meritocratic than is its publicly-avowed aim.

The system is not delivering that equality of opportunity as a good which would balance its "success" at also delivering vast income inequality – and indeed, declining financial expectations - for its 99 per cent.

Hah! But check out Peter Zeihan for the US view on why even a badly-run superpower can afford to get away with the kind of flawed politics that us smaller nations can't afford.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F68RLLXSJLU&feature=youtu.be

Zeihan say it starts with the US owning the world’s best chunk of geography – the largest expanse of good agricultural land with an ideal range of growing climates. And its continentally isolated location means it has never had to fear invasion.

The US has its huge demographic power too. A population of 330 million that isn’t greying like Germany, Japan, China and Russia.

It now even has its shale oil and gas revolution. Coming out of nowhere since 2010, the US now boasts of being energy independent.

The US is lucky in that it is born to so much wealth in the form of geographic advantage that it will take more than political dysfunction to turn it downwardly socially mobile within the larger world system.

Sure. With another reasonable person. :up: — apokrisis

Just to add to what I was saying earlier: Even in an absolutely perfect society there wouldn't be equality of opportunity. I mean what are we suppose to do, get rid of all the children with learning disabilities? What about the people who are naturally less ambitious and prefer to live a more relaxed lifestyle? Are we just suppose to expect everyone to be type-A perfectionists who strive to maximize income at virtually any cost? Even if society were perfectly fair and generous we could be seeing vast inequality.

Social mobility is a tough topic. I prefer studies which track individuals over, say, a 30 year period rather than just taking a snap-shot in time. I think when you look to these types of studies the picture is a little less bleak.

Even in an absolutely perfect society there wouldn't be equality of opportunity. I mean what are we suppose to do, get rid of all the children with learning disabilities? — BitconnectCarlos

I see what you mean. If perfection is impossible, just give up. In fact even to try can be equated to fanatical Nazi euthanasia. Sounds legit.

What about the people who are naturally less ambitious and prefer to live a more relaxed lifestyle? — BitconnectCarlos

Hey, that's me. That's any normal person. That's who society ought to be built around ... in my selfish view.

Who in their right mind votes for neoliberal purism? Who would vote to construct life as a rat race?

Are we just suppose to expect everyone to be type-A perfectionists who strive to maximize income at virtually any cost? Even if society were perfectly fair and generous we could be seeing vast inequality. — BitconnectCarlos

Something went wrong between the first and second sentence there.

The question is why would we even seek to maximise "at any cost" striving as a social good?

And if we indeed were, then the measurable socioeconomic lack of an equality of opportunity ought to be a prime issue for that curiously-motivated country.

So yes. I would be the first to say that inequality - a long-tail distribution of wealth - is precisely what a growth-based economics would predict. It has to be the outcome of making growth the central system goal.

But capital comes in various forms - social as well as financial. Politics is actually more complicated than that which is measured by GDP.

A growth in generosity might beat a growth in monied power. Or at least, the two could be held co-equal if they are in fact complementary.

The problem with neo-liberalism as an engine of growth is its lack of balance. And this is why social democracies are to be preferred. At least by me.

Social mobility is a tough topic. I prefer studies which track individuals over, say, a 30 year period rather than just taking a snap-shot in time. I think when you look to these types of studies the picture is a little less bleak. — BitconnectCarlos

You prefer data that fits your prejudices? Sure.

But the longitudinal data is what is showing that US equality of opportunity and equality of outcome were a rather fleeting 1950s post-war thing. Back when US politics was also remarkably federalist and corporatist by any neoliberal measure.

If we had equal distribution of opportunity, we would expect a normal distribution of outcome, to match the normal distribution of abilities.

But in the world we have today, someone like me — who is, according to all the aptitude tests of every kind I’ve ever taken, in the top 0.1% of ability — can just barely manage to keep up with the average (mean, not median) of financing outcomes, if they’re born into poverty like I was.

The usual responses I see to this is to say that my ability must not really be so great, that tests like that don’t really measure real-world ability, that the only way to measure someone’s actual ability is by their actual outcomes, so if you’re not rich then you simply must not actually be so smart or hard-working etc, because if you were then you would be rich. But that begs the question, since outcome is only a measure of ability IF opportunity is equal, which is exactly the point at issue.

If we had equal distribution of opportunity, we would expect a normal distribution of outcome, to match the normal distribution of abilities. — Pfhorrest

Talking about a "distribution of opportunity" honestly confuses me.

But in the world we have today, someone like me — who is, according to all the aptitude tests of every kind I’ve ever taken, in the top 0.1% of ability — can just barely manage to keep up with the average (mean, not median) of financing outcomes, if they’re born into poverty like I was. — Pfhorrest

Did you get straight As in school? Any college scholarships? I'm not going to doubt you here, if I could remember I think we've already delved into your personal situation a bit and I recommended getting out of California. We've already had this talk, I know. In some cities someone could be pulling 6 figures and still struggling. This isn't just a "you" thing - plenty of people are moving out of California because the state is ridiculously expensive and moving over to Texas where they can buy a house at a 1/4 the cost.

I know the American system isn't perfect and there's plenty of changes that I would make to it if given the opportunity. I don't just blindly endorse the status quo.

so if you’re not rich then you simply must not actually be so smart or hard-working etc, because if you were then you would be rich. — Pfhorrest

I would certainly never argue this.

Talking about a "distribution of opportunity" honestly confuses me. — BitconnectCarlos

It’s just a way of speaking in terms of statistics, exactly like distribution of ability. A uniform distribution means the quantity in question is equal for everyone, a normal distribution means the quantity in question follows a gaussian curve across the population, etc.

Did you get straight As in school? Any college scholarships? — BitconnectCarlos

I got straight As / 4.0 on my first degree and almost straight (besides one B) / 3.9 on my second. And full state and federal grants, except for my last term where I was over the age to qualify for state grants.

The way that poverty affected my opportunity was creating an unstable home life and leaving me nowhere to fall back on, forcing me to work close to full time to support myself while going through school, handling all my own crisis expenses like car breakdowns, living in shitty crowded shared housing (which is what got me that one B: housemates kept me awake all night right before a final) while being terrified of eviction or rent increases because I would just be homeless since I didn’t have family housing to fall back on, etc. Which in turn made me extremely risk-averse, kept me in shitty jobs because they were stable instead of trying for better jobs that might fall through, which kept me from learning further on the job and so has made finding better work increasingly more difficult even as I’ve gotten more stability with age that could allow me to risk trying out possibly better jobs, etc.

I can think of a few decisions I could have made differently in my early adulthood that would have made a dramatic difference in my life today, despite the poverty of my family, but not having a stable family to guide me through those decisions meant the only reason I now know I should have chosen differently is because of hindsight.


Oh and also, having to pay rent instead of just living in my family’s second or third home for free, or getting help with a big enough down payment that interest on a mortgage wouldn’t exceed rent, etc.

The general trend is the 1% aren't self-made but inherit their wealth and social advantage. So personal qualities or broader outlooks are pretty irrelevant. Better off considering the accidents of their birth. — apokrisis

The OP is “Who are they?”

Just to begin with it would be interesting to know if this is true or not.

From the Internet

Bill Gates $76 USA
2 Carlos Slim Helu $72 Mexico
3 Amancio Ortega $64 Spain
4 Warren Buffett $58 USA
5 Larry Ellison $48 USA
6 Charles Koch $40 USA
7 David Koch $40 USA
8 Sheldon Adelson $38 USA
9 Christy Walton $37 USA
10 Jim Walton $35 USA
11 Liliane Bettencourt $35 France
12 Stefan Persson $34 Sweden
13 Alice Walton

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/meet-the-80-people-who-are-as-rich-as-half-the-world/

I see what you mean. If perfection is impossible, just give up. In fact even to try can be equated to fanatical Nazi euthanasia. Sounds legit. — apokrisis

What is perfection? Complete equality of opportunity? I want you to really think on this one: Even if the US was a completely equal society, would every child have equal opportunity? Would everyone be equally capable of being an NFL football player? How about nuclear scientist? Is everyone capable of being a Picasso or a Michelangelo? How about a chess master? This isn't about "giving up" this is about acknowledging reality.

Hey, that's me. That's any normal person. That's who society ought to be built around ... in my selfish view. — apokrisis

Do you honestly believe that society should specifically cater to those who are less ambitious? IMO, society shouldn't really "cater" to anyone - if you want to work long hours and make your job your life, that's an acceptable decision and if you prefer more time off that's acceptable too. The trade-off there is that while you get more free time you'll likely be earning less. The high-earners on the other hand often have a lot less free time. It's about the trade-offs. I do strongly reject the view that society ought to be built around the less ambitious though. Society should largely not pass judgment except in extreme cases.

It’s just a way of speaking in terms of statistics, exactly like distribution of ability. A uniform distribution means the quantity in question is equal for everyone, a normal distribution means the quantity in question follows a gaussian curve across the population, etc. — Pfhorrest

I guess I just don't see opportunity as something that is "distributed." I guess in some sense it is though.

On balance, the rich have more opportunity than the poor. I'm comfortable saying that. However, when you look at the self, or any other individual, that individual is a billion different things - he may be physically gifted or not, mentally gifted or not, emotionally gifted or not, humorous, charismatic or not, etc. Also how sensitive that person is to failure plays a role in opportunity. Emotional resilience is huge.

These are all things I believe: 1) The rich, on balance, have more opportunity than the poor. 2) Even in a completely economically equal society, there would be no equality of opportunity. 3) The notion of "equality of opportunity" is a dubious one.

The way that poverty affected my opportunity was creating an unstable home life and leaving me nowhere to fall back on, forcing me to work close to full time to support myself while going through school, handling al my own crisis expenses like car breakdowns, living in shitty crowded shared housing (which is what got me that one B: housemates kept me awake all night right before a final) while being terrific of eviction or rate increases because I would just be homeless since I didn’t have family housing to fall back on, etc. Which in turn made me extremely risk-averse, kept me in shitty jobs because they were stable instead of trying for better jobs that might fall through, which kept me from learning further on the job and so has made finding better work increasingly more difficult even as I’ve gotten more stability with age that could allow me to risk trying out possibly better jobs, etc.

I can think of a few decisions I could have made differently in my early adulthood that would have made a dramatic difference in my life today, despite the poverty of my family, but not having a stable family to guide me through those decisions meant the only reason I now know I should have chosen differently is because of hindsight. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for sharing that. You mentioned something really important in the last paragraph - the importance of a stable family that could have guided you and given you help. I'll definitely agree that family is huge: Imagine if you had the support structure. It's definitely got to be tough without it. I'm very thankful that I have had a supportive, functional family throughout the years. If I fail, I would be able to fall back on them.

But yeah, I certainly don't like seeing anyone struggle, especially someone who is willing to work and has a desire to advance his economic position. I'm not claiming my advice is flawless here, but maybe you should reconsider the risk-averse attitude. I do think it would help considerably if you could find a better job, and sure there's some risk in that, but I've worked low wage jobs and it's just not something someone should be doing long term. If you don't take risks you're going to stay in relatively the same spot you are now.

Oh and also, having to pay rent instead of just living in my family’s second or third home for free, or getting help with a big enough down payment that interest on a mortgage wouldn’t exceed rent, etc. — Pfhorrest

Oh I would love to be able to do that too but unfortunately my family doesn't have 3 or even 2 homes. I am actually living at home now I separated from the military around 3 months ago and I'm looking to going back to school.

Oh and also, having to pay rent instead of just living in my family’s second or third home for free, or getting help with a big enough down payment that interest on a mortgage wouldn’t exceed rent, etc. — Pfhorrest

Ludicrous.

Just an aside... Rich, Super Rich, and Uber Rich.

With a fortune of around $400bn, Mansu Musa 1 of Mail, the first king of Timbuktu, may not be a household name, but by most estimates is the richest person who ever lived.

Deriving his wealth from his country’s vast salt and gold deposits, which at one time accounted for half the world’s supply, Musa ruled West Africa’s Malian Empire in the early 14th century, constructing hundreds of mosques across the continent, many of which survive to this day.

With a fortune estimated at between $300 to $400bn in today’s money, Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov (Nicolas II) of Russia was deposed and subsequently executed by the Bolsheviks in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution.

These are the 1 in a 100,000,000, not the 1 in 100. The top 0.000000001 percent.

Kind of puts it in perspective.

maybe you should reconsider the risk-averse attitude. I do think it would help considerably if you could find a better job — BitconnectCarlos

I have become more comfortable with risk as I’ve built up a safety net and can afford to lose a bit before I start winning. (And I am looking for a new job now, since my old once ceased to exist thanks to COVID-19... seven months and almost 1300 job applications later, still no luck).

That’s a general thing I like to point out when taking risk is argued to be what makes the rich deserve their rewards. The more you have beyond your basic needs, the more you can afford to gamble smartly, accepting some short term losses as you play the odds to long term victory. E.g where I am now in life, my investments can fluctuate up or down by hundreds or sometimes even thousands of dollars a day and I can afford to just ignore that so long as overall they trend upwards, because it’s not like I’m going to need to spend that money tomorrow. (Even now that I’m without a job, because I didn’t start investing until I already had a sufficient cash safety net set aside too, for exactly that reason).

But where I was a decade ago, a downward fluctuation of a thousand dollars would immediately knock me out of the game — I wouldn’t survive to make up for it over the long term. And that’s the kind of situation that most people are always in.

What do you mean?

That’s a general thing I like to point out when taking risk is argued to be what makes the rich deserve their rewards. — Pfhorrest

For me personally, I try to avoid using the term "deserve" in this context. I think "deserving" in this context is a very tricky notion.

The more you have beyond your basic needs, the more you can afford to gamble smartly, accepting some short term losses as you play the odds to long term victory. E.g where I am
now in life, my investments can fluctuate up or down by hundreds or sometimes even thousands of dollars a day and I can afford to just ignore that so long as overall they trend upwards, because it’s not like I’m going to need to spend that money tomorrow. (Even now that I’m without a job, because I didn’t start investing until I already had a sufficient cash safety net set aside too, for exactly that reason). — Pfhorrest

You're talking about investing here, right? Yeah, I understand. I understand that the rich are able to invest more, and in turn take more advantage of market upturns, but at the end of the day a bullish stock market is good for you too. I mean sure we can point and laugh at the billionaires when the market tanks, but your own portfolio is liking taking a hit there too. Even if most of the benefit goes directly to the mega-rich, I'd rather see the stock market rise.

But where I was a decade ago, a downward fluctuation of a thousand dollars would immediately knock me out of the game — I wouldn’t survive to make up for it over the long term. And that’s the kind of situation that most people are always in. — Pfhorrest

It's good to hear that your portfolio is able to withstand those drops.

More current update:

1. Jeff Bezos: $183bn (£137bn)
The former hedge fund manager turned online book seller started Amazon in his garage in 1994. Bezos has invested heavily in space technology and also owns The Washington Post newspaper.

2. Elon Musk: $136bn (£101.8bn)
Musk is the founder and CEO of SpaceX and also the CEO of Tesla.

3. Bill Gates: $129bn (£96.6bn)
A permanent fixture at the top end of rich list for the past 20 years, the Microsoft founder has sold or given away much of his stake in the company – he owns just 1% of Microsoft – and now focuses predominantly on his philanthropic work.

4. Mark Zuckerberg: $105bn (£78.6bn)
Zuckerberg famously started Facebook in 2004 at the age of 19 and now is among the top five richest men in the world.

5. Bernard Arnault & family: $105bn (£78.6bn)
Arnault is the wealthiest European on the list. The Frenchman oversees an empire of more than 60 brands including Louis Vuitton and Sephora.

6. Warren Buffett: $88.4bn (£66.2bn)
Now in his ninth decade, the Berkshire Hathaway chief executive, known as the “Oracle of Omagh” is one of the most successful investors of all time. Like Gates he has pledged to give away more than 99% of his fortune to charity.

7. Larry Page: $82.7bn (£61.9bn)
Internet entrepreneur Page is one of the co-founders of Google. He stepped down as CEO of Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc. in December 2019 but remains a board member.

8. Sergey Brin: $80.1bn (£60bn)
Along with Larry Page, Brin was a co-founder of Google. Until December 2019 he was president of Alphabet Inc.

9. Steve Ballmer: $77.4bn (£57.9bn)
The American was the former CEO of Microsoft from 2000 to 2014. He is the current owner of the Los Angeles Clippers NBA franchise.

10. Mukesh Ambani: $74.9bn (£56.1bn)
Indian Ambani has a 42% controlling stake in Reliance Industries, which is the owner of the world’s largest oil refining complex. He is also the owner of property worth more than $400m.

Except for those 1 percenters who make their money by trading in currencies and the like, most of the Uber-rich, super-rich, and merely rich make their money by supplying the world with stuff. Here's a list of the first 50 of the Fortune 500 companies:

Walmart
Amazon
Exxon Mobil
Apple
CVS Health
Berkshire Hathaway
UnitedHealth Group
McKesson
AT&T
AmerisourceBergen
Alphabet
Ford Motor
Cigna
Costco Wholesale
Chevron
Cardinal Health
JPMorgan Chase
General Motors
Walgreens Boots Alliance
Verizon Communications
Microsoft
Marathon Petroleum
Kroger
Fannie Mae
Bank of America
Home Depot
Phillips 66
Comcast
Anthem
Wells Fargo
Citigroup
Valero Energy
General Electric
Dell Technologies
Johnson & Johnson
State Farm Insurance
Target
International Business Machines
Raytheon Technologies
Boeing
Freddie Mac
Centene
UPS
Lowe's
Intel
Facebook
FedEx
MetLife
Walt Disney
Procter & Gamble — Fortune Magazine

Chances are, everyone here has bought something from one of these companies or from the other 450 companies on the fortune list. The major stock owners of these companies are likely to be among the richest 1%, 5%, or 10% (United States). Of course, companies own shares in other companies. 4½% of UPS is owned by Black Rock Fund advisers (31,243,809 shares). In turn, a large hunk of Black Rock is owned by Laurence D. Fink--Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BlackRock. He is worth about $1 billion.

Jamie Dimon is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of JPMorgan Chase, the largest of the big four American banks. He owns a small percentage of MorganChase and is worth 1½ billion.

Hey, let's not be sneering at people who are worth only a billion bucks. I would gladly settle for $1B!

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?

The last Tzar of Russia, Nicholas II, was worth an estimated $300-400 billion in current money. Well worth the Bolsheviks' time to liquidate his fortune. And it was time. The Romanovs had been running things for several hundred years (think Peter the Great--that's what his friends called him, anyway).

Hmmm, never looked it up. Well... never too late.

Yes, people do make money trading insubstantial derivatives. I don't really understand how this works, but a lot of money is involved. All kinds of commodities are covered by futures contracts -- everything from peanuts to platinum. People in this group trade commodity futures, currencies, credit derivatives, credit default swap insurance contracts, financial instruments--insubstantial - but real paper stuff. There is usually something of real substance underneath the speculation.

This is a short list from one small site

Bill Lipschutz - probably a Five Percenter; worth less than a billion. He was bringing in $300,000,000 a year for Salomon Brothers for a while. He was very good for Salomon, at least.

Joseph C. Lewis - worth over $4½ billion

Stanley Druckenmiller - worth over $4.7 to $4.8 billion; worked with Soros

Paul Tudor Jones - worth over $5.3 billion

George Soros - worth about $8.3 billion, but that is after transferring 20 billion dollars to the Open Society Foundation. Soros and Druckenmiller made $1B in their bank breaking bet against the Bank of England.

Bruce Kovner - worth over $5.3 - $5.5 billion

Martin Schwartz - a well known player, but his wealth figure is unknown; he's 75; he spends his time owning and racing champion horses

Andrew Krieger - unknown, but probably in the $100 million range

You're talking about investing here, right? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm using investing as the clearest example, but generalizing the principle to risk in general.

Someone with enough money can afford to invest in a bunch of different businesses (buy stocks) and weather the downturns in the hopes of long-term profit.

But also a person with enough to reserves to afford to fail can afford to start a small business, that will probably fail like most do, on the hope of maybe making it big as an entrepreneur. Those with even more money can afford to take even more stabs at that, and so have even better odds of eventually making it. Someone who's concerned about making sure they have enough rent on the 1st can't risk anything like that.

And a person like that can afford to take a better-paying job in a distant and more expensive city, a job which they might lose leaving them somewhere they can't afford with no social support system, because they've probably got the savings to either live there long enough to find a replacement job, or pay the cost of moving back somewhere else. Someone with no savings hoping they'll have enough for rent on the 1st can't afford that risk.

There are all kinds of risky life choices that can pay off more in the long term, that it would be unwise for people clinging to the edge of survival to attempt, because they can't survive the slightest stumble, whereas someone with plenty of money (or family with money) to fall back on can take those risks and live to try again.


Also, on the topic of ambition, and your conversation with @apokrisis: society should be structured such that an unambitious person who just wants to stay at home and tend to their little garden can do so. As it is now, it takes enormous ambition to get out there and fight like hell for decades on end just to get a little home, never mind a garden. A cutthroat capitalist society doesn't merely reward the ambitious with greater luxuries, it simply doesn't allow the unambitious to live at all.

I had real ambition when I was young. I was always told I was so smart and capable that I could do anything, and I had enormous plans for this huge multimedia franchise that I wanted to spend my entire life working on. You can see the outline of it on my website -- the mere outline is 60,000 words, so that should give you a sense of the ambition I was going for there. I tried with some friends to start a small company to get that going, all of us working for equity, trying to build a first small project (a project literally 0.4% the size of the complete franchise goal), and then sell that to fund the next one, but of course that failed.

Half a decade into my adulthood, I realized that that's just not the kind of thing that someone like me with no money can possibly accomplish. I had had multiple complete-resets of my life progress by then, due to unexpected large expenses brought on by poverty in the first place (I had to drive shitty cars, and couldn't afford routine maintenance, so they kept dying, so I had to buy lots of shitty cars). And after I had to move out of my dad's tool shed, and start paying someone else rent, I dreamed of just getting to a place in life where I could afford to go broke again without losing everything, where I could survive not being ambitious.

So with great pain and reluctance I resigned myself to an "ordinary" life. Instead of trying to achieve great things, I would aim low, just try to secure my basic necessities like a house, just the minimal level of financial security, so I wouldn't be poor and on the verge of homelessness like my parents by the time my kids (that I then expected to have some day) were adults.

Half a decade later still, as I was approaching 30, and still nowhere near even beginning to buy a house, I started looking at statistics, seeing how much things really cost, how much people really made, and realized how fucking impossible it is for anyone to achieve even that bare minimum of security: the right to sit and starve somewhere without paying someone for the privilege. It was then that I realized that I wasn't statistically poor; I had, my entire life, been making around the median income. 50% of people were more poor than me. And yet even aiming low like that, just living an unambitious boring life, I had realized, was a pipe dream.

That's when I started getting really pissed off about the state of society, once I looked at the stats and saw that I wasn't a failure, I was doing better than most; that my problems were a systemic social failure, that was failing not only me, but almost everybody.

I don't know who the 1% are but wealth seems to violate two known physical laws:

1. The second law of thermodynamics (entropy): Money distributed should have more entropy than money accumulated but the latter is the norm rather than the exception. What offsets this reversal of entropy is anyone's guess but it would do wonders if we could discover what that is, allowing us to do something about the rich-poor gap.

2. The law of diffusion. As per this law, there should be a movement from high concentration to low concentration until that which is diffusing becomes equally distributed throughout. This is false for money - money tends to concentrate in the hands of the few rather than diffuse and achieve a homogeneous state of even wealth distribution.

It seems the two laws are related but it's nice to get different perspectives on the matter. The key point to note here is that entropy reversal comes at a cost i.e. net decrease in entropy in a system, here wealth accumulating in the hands of the few, is possible only if there's an equivalent increase in entropy...somewhere (where exactly? I have no idea). If we can figure that out, we may be able to, as Yoda say, "restore balance to the force." :lol: