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 — Brett

Yes, without understanding who they are, OR without understanding the social/political/economic milieu in which they exist.

As it happens, tax law has quite a bit to do with how well inheritance transfers wealth from one generation to the next. In times and places where inheritance tax law is quite restrictive, it is more difficult to be "born with a golden spoon in one's mouth". Where tax law is lax, it's much easier.

The organization and operation of the economy has quite a bit to do with how easily one can get rich through one's own efforts. Where investment capital is scarce, where investors are very skittish and reluctance to take chances, starting a company is much more difficult -- and the same for expansion.

How personal income and corporate income is taxed is also an important factor in getting rich by one's own efforts.

Steve Jobs and Steve Wosniak DID NOT get Apple Computers going by buying parts from Radio Shack, building 5 computers, selling those, and using the profits to buy parts for 8 more computers; selling those, and so on until they were making first dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of computers, finally seeing some real income.

What they did was get a loan to buy parts, rent space, hire some people, and then build a bunch of computers, sell them, and then show the bank that their plan was worth another loan. The banks made money, eventually Apple made money, and finally Steve & Steve got rich.

Businesses almost always require borrowing in order to operate -- even very large companies. Bankers can kill or promote a company with the denial or granting of credit. Start-ups especially require credit.

Why do banks lend money to some people and deny it to others? Well, connections matter a great deal. Backers (or guarantors) are another. Collateral helps a great deal. Some sort of track record is important. The fact is that a lot of people couldn't get a loan to get the greatest idea in the world off the ground if banks don't like their looks, background, connections, plans track record, or the astrological sign they were born under.

Of course, banks lend money to make money, and they hate losing it. Consequently, most credit seekers are going to be shown the door pretty quickly.

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.

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. — Brett

We live in a capitalist country par excellence and accumulating wealth (surplus value) out of the hides of the workers is The Name of the Game. The 1% are either the most successful capitalists, or they are the children of capitalists (or grandchildren...) Capitalism is not based on any sort of equal distribution of wealth. The Uber Capitalist himself, Henry Ford, realized workers had to make enough money in his factories if any of them were to be able to buy his products. He didn't raise their wages to $5 an hour in 1914 out of the kindness of his heart. Kindness had nothing to do with it.

The existence of extremely wealthy people today, by itself, is not the critical problem. The critical problem is that in heavily concentrating wealth among one to ten percent of the population the remaining 90% are starved for wealth. Large numbers of people (I should say, large percentages of people) can not acquire the basic pieces of a comfortable life style that was available 60 years ago. States, counties, and cities have increasing difficulties financing the essential services and amenities that make a big city and a given state a nice place to live. Students have to borrow a lot of money to pay for college (because legislatures have reduced state funding to higher education). And so on and so forth.

Between 1930 and 1980 the distribution of wealth was not egalitarian by any stretch of the imagination, but it was less severely disproportionate. That more egalitarian distribution turbo-charged the post WWII recovery, which started to come to a halt in 1973 with the Arab oil boycott.

So, within a capitalist milieu, it makes no sense to prevent people from accumulating wealth. Either accept some degree of inequality, or opt for abolishing capitalism.

I think Streetlight opts for abandoning capitalism; he's kind of bitter and resentful about it. I'm in favor of getting rid of capitalism too, but despite my handle I have a sunnier disposition. Odd how that works out.

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?

Andrew Carnegie and others have found that it is hard work to dispose of billions of dollars through philanthropy in a responsible manner. Most foundations (even ones that are loaded) give money away in dribs and drabs; usually about 5% of their total assets (less than what the foundation is earning on investments, one hopes). Target Foundation gives away 5% of its profits, about $4,000,000 a week.

If Bill Gates gave his money away at Target's rate, it would take him 500 years to get rid of it all. So, Billy dear, send me... oh, 400 million. It will make life easier for both of us.

I can help too.

Supposedly the 90% are starved for wealth because 1% has it.[/quote]

Correct. Here's the principle behind it:
Workers produce goods and services for which they get paid.
The value of what they produce is greater than the wages they are paid.
The owner of the company keeps the difference between wages paid and value of goods produced.

Of course, there are some other pieces -- like plant maintenance, raw materials, heating an cooling, administration, taxes, and so on. What the owner takes away after everything is paid for is called surplus value. Accumulating surplus value (in the form of money) is the goal of the capitalist. He wants to make money for himself (or herself). The more the better.

But let’s assume the 1% didn't gain it, does that mean the 90% would have it instead? Where would it come from? — Brett

Labor ultimately produces all wealth--in any economic system.

IF there were only workers and no owners (no 1%), THEN what there would be some sort of socialist economy operating. Yes, the 90% would have it instead. Workers and their children make up the majority of the population. They would keep the value of what they produced. They would be better off because they would possess the surplus value they produced. (Obviously, they wouldn't all be filthy rich. One gets rich by accumulating surplus value, not by spreading it out evenly.).

IF there were only workers and no owners (no 1%), THEN what there would be some sort of socialist economy operating. Yes, the 90% would have it instead. Workers and their children make up the majority of the population. They would keep the value of what they produced. They would be better off because they would possess the surplus value they produced. — Bitter Crank

Yep. The pandemic proved what everyone already knew - that if the 1% dropped dead tomorrow, nothing at all would change. All value comes from those who produce, not the parasitic leeches who expropriate the value of their labour.

Businesses almost always require borrowing in order to operate — Bitter Crank

Only because money is concentrated in so few hands (those of the banks) to begin with.

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.

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.

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?

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, just as they do now; they just get to keep all of what they produce, instead of some parasites siphoning it off of them because of a legal fiction that they're entitled to it. @Bitter Crank is already explaining this above (as have I, in a different aspect, in my explanation of the problems of rent and interest; I think that the workplace dysfunction is only a symptom of the greater dysfunction caused by people being born into debt, as nobody would accept the shitty wages so many are forced to if the alternative wasn't being completely denied access to the capital that they need to do the work necessary to generate what they need to live).

(And some capital is not produced by humans at at all, but just part of the natural world, to which nobody is entitled a disproportionate share).

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%.

So 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; 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.

The owners charging each others' workers (their customers) a profit margin doesn't magically generate more money out of nowhere, it just takes money that would have been kept either by the producers (as higher wages) or by the consumers (as lower prices), who are the same class of people either way.

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.

No they don’t because they all have to pay the inflated price, which diminishes the value of their wages. — Brett

They're already paying the inflated price. The inflated price is the current market price. But that money they pay now goes to someone else. If that someone else wasn't in the picture, it would go to themselves instead; or alternately, they could just not charge themselves that.

Right now, they as a class (being both the producers and the consumers) pay (X+Y+Z)% = 100% of the current market price, and receive X% of it in wages, while the owners takes Y%, and Z% go to other factors of production.

If there were no separate owners involved, and they sold at the same price it's currently sold at, then they would still pay (X+Y+Z)%, but they would receive (X+Y)% in wages, with Z% going to other factors of production. Their net gain over the status quo: Y%.

Alternatively if there were no separate owners involved, and they sold at the minimum production price of (X+Z)% its current price, then they would pay only (X+Z)% (which is Y% less than the current price), and receive X%, with Z% going to other factors of production. Their net gain over the status quo: Y%.

I don’t see how destroying the 1%, branding them as parasites or robbing them of their wealth will change things. — Brett

Well, gee whiz, Brett; I was just following Jesus on this: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God."

Not only that, but Jesus said to the rich young man “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor."

Upon Jesus' pretty plain advice, very few rich folk have ever made themselves poor, and if Jesus couldn't get them to give it up, I seriously doubt that they will give it up on my recommendation.

Destroy or attenuate the profit motive. There's no reason why the world has to be fucked up because of some man-made institution that could be otherwise.

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.

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. — Brett

The 1% do not have a fated moral flaw. They are not rich because they are evil. the rich are evil because they are rich. Radix malorum est cupiditas." The love of money is the root of all evil.

OK, I'll dismount from this moral high horse.

Many people are stuck trying to imagine a different way of operating a large complex economy. They just can't picture a world without rich people running the show.

The thing is, we don't need the rich or their motivation to accumulate great wealth at everyone else's expense to have a successful, productive economy. The workers have the technical know-how to produce, everything from digging up iron ore to putting the finishing touches on a car. Workers supervise the factories (they are employees, after all) and workers do the accounting, payroll, design, advertising, production planning, etc. The owners of auto companies (Ford, GM, Fiat Chrysler, VW, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Subaru, et al) do not do any of the work producing cars. They are, to a large extent, what @streetlightx called them: parasites.

The work of beginning an enterprise (let's say, making chicken McNuggets from stem cells) can be done by members of the community who want to provide a sustainable supply of meat (such as stem-cell McNuggets) to other workers. The local elementary school teacher, nurse, construction worker, or mechanic need not know how to do this, because there are people who already know how to do this. The community raises the funds, contributes labor, etc., however they want to do it, to plan, build and operate the ersatz bird pieces. They sell the product to other worker organizations that buy and warehouse food, prior to distribution. Yes, cash changes hands but the intent is not to maximize profit (the capitalist model) but rather to earn enough to operate the plant, pay the workers, and set aside something for future expansion, repairs, machinery replacement, etc.

None of this requires a capitalist bent on becoming rich. Indeed, it requires NOT HAVING such a capitalist deadweight.

The biggest obstacle to success is the dead hand of the past in the form of banks, corporations, politicians, and so forth that would hate to see such a development come to pass. So it isn't likely to happen without getting rid of the dead hand of the past.

There is no cosmic rule which requires the world to meet its needs through the capitalist model.

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

the rich are evil — Bitter Crank

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

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?

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

I'm not going to enforce anything, and neither are you, Ditto for managing human behavior. Human beings are well equipped to construct society, enforce group rules, and manage the behavior of the group. We have been using these capacities since the Stone Age when we struck out as hunter-gatherer bands a 250,000 years ago. And, please note, we still do. Most of the benefits of an orderly society derive from most people's willingness to cooperate. There are not enough law enforcement personnel in the solar system to make everybody behave. Most of the time, most of us behave because we understand following group rules.

Some people misbehave. There are criminals, anti-socials, capitalist pigs, and such that require the tender, loving care of the community. That's why communities hire people to police the town, and bring the drunkards in off the streets to sober up. That's why communities have mental health engineers to deal with anti-socials and capitalist pigs who just don't know how to behave. That's why there are jails, hospitals, and pleasant preserves on isolated Aleutian Islands to which totally uncooperative persons can be sent for rest and recovery.

Sorry, but I was just quoting Jesus. He's an expert in that area.

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.

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

It might depend on what one is ambitious to do. Rebels? Innovators? Society needs them. Hopefully, they will make significant contributions to a good and better world.

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

So, there have been several references to the lists of people who constitute the top of the 1%. However, the entire rich 1% of the population constitutes a far longer list than anyone would want to read. Hundreds of thousands of names are on that list.

Making the list would require a lot of searching in social registries, country club files, housing sales records, corporate records, tax records, property records, and the like -- some of which is, and quite of bit of which is not public.

once again the profit motive will dominate, competition from others and inflated prices for all goods will grow. — Brett

People charging whatever they can get away with (profit motive) is fine, so long as those people are the ones actually doing the work, and not just some gatekeeper between the producers and consumers siphoning off along the way.

But competition from others tends to reduce the ability for profit. It's lack of competition, because the wealth necessary to start competing is in so few hands, that leads to the ability to profit. If everyone is charging whatever they can get away with and anyone can start competing with them whenever, the market price is expected be driven down to cost. That's markets 101. The fact that that doesn't actually happen in practice is indicative of a problem somewhere.

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.

The factory-owners in the current setup don't actually build factories themselves. They pay others to build them factories, and pay them less than what those factories are actually worth to them, because they can, because they control the wealth and the workers who need it don't have much choice but to either accept what they can get or stage a rebellion against the entire world order.

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?