iwillspankyou wrote:Nobody deserve this kind of wealth - they could not spend if they lived a million years. Ppl that think this is fair in any way, must be pretty delusional imo
The point of wealth isn't to spend it. Rich people invest their wealth in assets that fuel growth and benefit the wider economy.
If that was true, if they would invest the money instead of hording them, nobody would be out of work! And there would not be any need for tax havens or secret accounts in Caiman Island, Bermuda, Switzerland etc etc.
You clearly do not understand wealth. These people do not sit on their money, they invest it. Look at anything as an investment, whether it be buying companies, or property. These things have value. Their worth is not how much money they have, but how much all their investments are valued at.
The rich are bullish on the economy just like the investing middle class. The difference I’ve noticed from surveys and speaking to people of both classes is that the rich hold much more cash (risk free assets) as part of their net worth as compared to the average person. Citi Private Bank came out with a survey of 50 representatives who manage high net-worth families that nearly two-thirds of their clients think it’s more likely the stock market will go up at least 10% in the coming year than lose value. I can get behind this bet.
Yet these same wealthy investors have, on average, almost 40% of their portfolio in cash with stocks averaging only 25% of their portfolios!
The rich are bullish on the economy just like the investing middle class. The difference I’ve noticed from surveys and speaking to people of both classes is that the rich hold much more cash (risk free assets) as part of their net worth as compared to the average person. Citi Private Bank came out with a survey of 50 representatives who manage high net-worth families that nearly two-thirds of their clients think it’s more likely the stock market will go up at least 10% in the coming year than lose value. I can get behind this bet.
Yet these same wealthy investors have, on average, almost 40% of their portfolio in cash with stocks averaging only 25% of their portfolios!
what case are you resting? How many people do you know that invest 25% of their worth in any form. If someone went to a casino and risked 25% of their worth on a gamble you would think they are crazy.
Most ppl have debt, studen loans and morgages. How many ppl have 40% of their wealt in cash stacked away?? The numbers we are talking about are astronomous
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
The rich are bullish on the economy just like the investing middle class. The difference I’ve noticed from surveys and speaking to people of both classes is that the rich hold much more cash (risk free assets) as part of their net worth as compared to the average person. Citi Private Bank came out with a survey of 50 representatives who manage high net-worth families that nearly two-thirds of their clients think it’s more likely the stock market will go up at least 10% in the coming year than lose value. I can get behind this bet.
Yet these same wealthy investors have, on average, almost 40% of their portfolio in cash with stocks averaging only 25% of their portfolios!
Idealistically there is no problem with people having wealth. realistically every dollar someone holds in savings is a dollar plus the interest that has been accruing on that dollar since its creation that someone, somewhere holds in debt. (because money is not created into existence, it is borrowed from centralized banks) This fundamental mathematical principle is why the disparity happens from the rich and poor. Someone gets the short end of the stick. That is a type of financial slavery. It turns imaginary worthless "credits" into tangible real assets and services, the monetary system the world has in play is a type of dark magic.
howlingwolfpaw wrote:Idealistically there is no problem with people having wealth. realistically every dollar someone holds in savings is a dollar plus the interest that has been accruing on that dollar since its creation that someone, somewhere holds in debt. (because money is not created into existence, it is borrowed from centralized banks) This fundamental mathematical principle is why the disparity happens from the rich and poor. Someone gets the short end of the stick. That is a type of financial slavery. It turns imaginary worthless "credits" into tangible real assets and services, the monetary system the world has in play is a type of dark magic.
That is a very good point. But to be more exact, the interest itself consists of a net profit and a risk premium. The risk premium is not the problem, as it is can be seen as a kind of security against defaults which in the end evens out losses from defaults and profits from the risk premium itself. The problem is much more the 'net profit' part of the interest rate.
This problem is not going to disappear as long as we have a financial system as liberal as it is now. The current schemes for rent seeking lead to a high efficiency of the financial sector on the one hand, but to systemic risk and instability on the other hand. It is unfortunate that instability tends to affect poor people much more than rich people. Because of this, the richer have the full benefits of the financial sector's efficiency (which poor people simply cannot use for themselves as they do not have as much money to invest) while not suffering under its drawbacks.
It is as usual: you can choose between a more liberal system which is efficent but leads to inequality and instability or a less liberal system which is less efficient but more stable and with less strong effects on equality.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
While full economic statistics won’t come in for weeks, the early signs aren’t good. A survey of 1,092 business leaders conducted after the referendum by the Institute of Directors, a London-based business organization, found a quarter are freezing recruitment and almost as many are considering moving some operations out of the U.K. In a survey of 2,000 consumers by Retail Economics, a consulting firm, 58 percent said they thought the vote would have a negative impact on their spending on non-essential items.
Fighting inequality isn't dumb. Completely removing it might not be so practical though, but that doesn't mean the state of the USA with that wealth distribution is acceptable.
iNcog wrote:The problem with rich people is simply that that's how the world is fueled in the first place.
If you want to produce 10 aircraft every month and sell them for $100k each, then you're going to need to substantial assets. You need to pay salaries, buy the factory, power the factory, pay taxes, etc. You need to bring an initial investment to the table. The entities which have that amount of cash available are the rich.. whether they're individuals or banks.
Since we aren't communists, we can't put a gun to peoples' heads and force them to buy our aircraft. So what we must do is insure that aircraft are sold is make sure that they are of very good quality, that they aren't too expensive to produce, customer service (well in aviation that's actually an industry), etc. The guy who does that is the CEO and it's his job to make sure that the numbers add up. If the CEO fucks up, the entire god damn thing goes to shit. That means that people are out of their job as well.
You're telling me that the CEO who shoulders immense responsibilities, as well as risks, does not deserve to be paid? You think he just sits in his office jerking off using €10 cuts as tissues? What about the people who risked their money into the company in the first place? If an investor decided to risk $1M into the company, does that mean that he shouldn't get $1M+ back? Should there be a limit as to how much he can get back?
great in-box thinking here incog. Capitalists everywhere are proud of you, oh liberal you.
Jerom wrote:Fighting inequality isn't dumb. Completely removing it might not be so practical though, but that doesn't mean the state of the USA with that wealth distribution is acceptable.
Agreed, but the swivel-eyed loons on these forums have still got it all wrong.
Maybe these latest posts should be split into another thread about capitalism, profit, inequality, etc. They don't relate much with the UK and EU. It's a much more general subject. And I feel like if I'm posting on topic here we're talking past each other.
How about instead of being social justice warriors on your Chinese-made smartphone, you boycott Chinese products which are made with coal energy and slave labor?
I have been doing this for a while. I avoid buying anything Made in China. I just don't like the idea of contributing to China's economic growth and their growing status in the world. But, imo, better open a new thread about this stuff. No point in derailing this one. Just open a thread about "Can we fix capitalism?" or something like that.
I think you're more likely to have a new thread if you make it yourself, rather than wait for mods to do something.
On-topic:
Scotland's PM, Nicola Sturgeon, was in Brussels to discuss possible avenues in the future for Scotland's relation with the EU, considering they voted heavily in favour of staying in the EU. And they got royally fucked in the ass by the British vote.
It turns out this is a thorny issue. EU officials realised they can't hold any official talks with the prime minister of a country which is not a legal subject of the treaty. Nowhere in the treaty does it say Scotland signed their membership separately from the UK, so the EU can't hold any official talks with Scotland about staying in the EU. They have to sort it out with the UK.
But, on the other hand, while there is cross-party agreement in Scotland that they should "maintain a strong Scotland in Europe", the main parties don't support holding another referendum for independence. So, it's kind of a contradictory stance here. And since the EU can't do shit about this, their only chance is an actual referendum for independence. The Scots just have to grow some fucking balls and frame this new referendum in new terms, as the situation changed radically from 2014 when they rejected independence.
Also, obviously, some states in Europe, like Spain, are getting fidgety about the EU even holding any talks with Scotland, since they don't want this to encourage any Catalonian calls for independence.
Overall, shit's getting more serious day by day, but also things don't seem to have any simple solutions in these cases.
