First of all, it matters if the stock market is fulfilling its original intention. Which it obviously is. Second of all, some of the biggest traders on the stock market are pension funds of common workers, appreciating their retirement money. Fuck over how exactly?
And third, let’s say none of what I wrote is true. Why are we somehow better of not having a stock market at all instead of fixing it to fulfill its purpose? Or making a new one if it is easier? Do you regularly throw away things without getting a replacement when they stop working? Never replaced your car and phone after they got old and broke?
Second of all, some of the biggest traders on the stock market are pension funds of common workers, appreciating their retirement money.
“The rich now own a record share of stocks,” Axios reported on January 10, noting that the top 10 percent hold about 93 percent of U.S. households stock market wealth.
You’re being misleading, or have been misleading about the allocation of wealth within the stock market.
Retirement should be a public service, not a form of gambling within a system set up for the rich.
Why are we somehow better of not having a stock market at all instead of fixing it to fulfill its purpose?
Because it would be one less way for the rich to obfuscate their wealth growth, because the original purpose of distributing ownership through shares is an inherently flawed idea.
Do you regularly throw away things without getting a replacement when they stop working?
“Why would we get rid of the orphan killing machine!?!?!? We would have to replace it with a new one.”
Ok, lets do some math. The GDP of the US is $28 trillion. The population of 15 years and above is about 273.85 million. That gives about $102,000 annually per person in this category. The median personal income is about $40,500 annually. So almost 40% of the entire economy goes to wages and other income of normal people alone. And yes, it is median (not average) so we are talking normal people wages, not CEO wages. According to wikipedia, about 17.3% of the GDP is government consumption and 17.2% is capital investment. That leaves little over 25% unaccounted for. This will include everything not accounted above. Charities, rich people wages, lottery winnings, … and of course, stock market gains and dividends.
I can’t account for more of the 25% right now (it is late, maybe someday), but even if it all went to the filthily rich along with a proportional part of government consumption and capital investment, then the normal people still get 61% of the economy. In the absolute worst case. Seems to me like lot of the “ultra-wealthy own most of america” is just misinformation.
Ok, lets do some math. The GDP of the US is $28 trillion.
You shouldn’t be using GDP for this, as GDP is a notoriously bad metric for understanding the flow of wealth. If I pay you $100 to wash my car and you pay me $100 to wash your car, the GDP of our actions is $200 even though both of our wealth is unchanged. GDP is simply a measure of how fast money is circulating.
You need to be looking at that actual allocation of the wealth, as the rich like to use a myriad of loopholes to obfuscate their acquisitions.
So you are explaining why the rich get less than what I calculated because GDP is overestimated while the way I calculated income of median people is solid.
Thanks for helping to make my argument.
The whole point is people are obsessed by the rich having ridiculous wealth on paper because of owning companies, but them owning companies does not take anything away from society. The factories produce goods for people and who receive the goods is determined by who buys the goods which is determined mainly by income, not wealth.
Or let me put it in different words: Let’s say you and I have the same wage across our lives. I save third of my paycheck for my entire life to build up savings. I only buy what I need. You spend yours on luxuries every month. After 40 years, is it unfair I have a lot of money and you don’t, since you spent it all? Should I be taxed more then you? We calculated what the income of the rich is above. The reason they have so much wealth is because instead of spending it on luxuries, they not only save it, but invest it. Investing does not give them sports car or better lifestyle. It helps produce more goods for the people that spend their money. It helps everyone become richer by increasing the overall economic output.
And yes, they get a share of this increased output as calculated above for helping make it by investing instead of spending their money on lavish parties, exotic trips or whatever you would spend that kind of money on.
So you are explaining why the rich get less than what I calculated
No. Not even close. I’m explaining that GDP is a terrible metric to look at this problem. You need to look at wealth holdings. And the rich own basically all wealth.
The whole point is people are obsessed by the rich having ridiculous wealth on paper because of owning companies, but them owning companies does not take anything away from society.
So this is wrong in two ways. The first bit with “wealth on paper” is wrong, because the rich own the wealth. Loads of it are tied up in stocks, sure, but it is still wealth. And they use it like we use other fiat currencies, so to them stocks are just as “real” as USD is “real”.
The second is that the economy is a finitely expandable pool that is itself finite. So it is ultimately a zero sum game.
There is a limited number of hot dogs that can be sold in a year. Every hot dog sold by vendor A is a hotdog that cannot be sold by vendor B. You can advertise and brainwash the population into buying more hotdogs, but there is a limit to how many people will buy hotdogs. Every stock that is owned by rich asshat A is a stock that cannot be owned by worker B.
So yes, the rich owning all the wealth directly takes away from the rest of us.
The factories produce goods for people and who receive the goods is determined by who buys the goods which is determined mainly by income, not wealth.
“Who is able to buy X” isn’t a relevant question to the problem of wealth inequality/hoarding.
Or let me put it in different words: Let’s say you and I have the same wage across our lives.
This analogy immediately falls apart, because I earn about $40/hr.
Bezos collects the equivalent of about $8,000,000/hr.
That is grotesque. It is not the same wage. The stock market, the economy, and all the wealth is owned by the rich.
We need to fix this.
Should I be taxed more then you?
The only taxes we should have should be a land value tax, and a pollution/carbon tax.
It helps everyone become richer by increasing the overall economic output.
The stock market doesn’t increase economic output, not do I care if it does. Economic output should not be the goal. Sustainable human survival should be.
If sustainable survival is your only goal, go live in a forest. People can survive without factories.
As for your ridiculous hot dog analogy, are you saying as it is now, everyone in the world has as many hotdogs as they want? If not, there is obviously value in making more.
Also, I don’t care how many times you say GDP is not a good metric because it is not fitting your narrative. It is a good upper bound on how much value is produced. You can’t wish it away just because it proves you wrong.
If sustainable survival is your only goal, go live in a forest.
I’m saying it should be the goal of the economy instead of the current situation in which the only goal is everlasting, ever growing profit.
And I would go live in the woods if I could, but I can’t afford to do that.
As for your ridiculous hot dog analogy, are you saying as it is now, everyone in the world has as many hotdogs as they want? If not, there is obviously value in making more.
I am saying that there is a finite amount of hotdogs that can be sold per unit of time. Therefore it is a zero sum game. Therefore acquisition of wealth means taking away wealth from others.
Also, I don’t care how many times you say GDP is not a good metric because it is not fitting your narrative. It is a good upper bound on how much value is produced. You can’t wish it away just because it proves you wrong.
It doesn’t prove me wrong. You’ve seen the above graph. You know the wealth is allocated in the hands of the rich. The GDP is irrelevant.
I’ve explained it to you twice now, and if it is beyond your graph then that’s on you.
First of all, it matters if the stock market is fulfilling its original intention. Which it obviously is. Second of all, some of the biggest traders on the stock market are pension funds of common workers, appreciating their retirement money. Fuck over how exactly?
And third, let’s say none of what I wrote is true. Why are we somehow better of not having a stock market at all instead of fixing it to fulfill its purpose? Or making a new one if it is easier? Do you regularly throw away things without getting a replacement when they stop working? Never replaced your car and phone after they got old and broke?
“The rich now own a record share of stocks,” Axios reported on January 10, noting that the top 10 percent hold about 93 percent of U.S. households stock market wealth.
https://ips-dc.org/the-richest-1-percent-own-a-greater-share-of-the-stock-market-than-ever-before/
You’re being misleading, or have been misleading about the allocation of wealth within the stock market.
Retirement should be a public service, not a form of gambling within a system set up for the rich.
Because it would be one less way for the rich to obfuscate their wealth growth, because the original purpose of distributing ownership through shares is an inherently flawed idea.
“Why would we get rid of the orphan killing machine!?!?!? We would have to replace it with a new one.”
Ok, lets do some math. The GDP of the US is $28 trillion. The population of 15 years and above is about 273.85 million. That gives about $102,000 annually per person in this category. The median personal income is about $40,500 annually. So almost 40% of the entire economy goes to wages and other income of normal people alone. And yes, it is median (not average) so we are talking normal people wages, not CEO wages. According to wikipedia, about 17.3% of the GDP is government consumption and 17.2% is capital investment. That leaves little over 25% unaccounted for. This will include everything not accounted above. Charities, rich people wages, lottery winnings, … and of course, stock market gains and dividends.
I can’t account for more of the 25% right now (it is late, maybe someday), but even if it all went to the filthily rich along with a proportional part of government consumption and capital investment, then the normal people still get 61% of the economy. In the absolute worst case. Seems to me like lot of the “ultra-wealthy own most of america” is just misinformation.
You shouldn’t be using GDP for this, as GDP is a notoriously bad metric for understanding the flow of wealth. If I pay you $100 to wash my car and you pay me $100 to wash your car, the GDP of our actions is $200 even though both of our wealth is unchanged. GDP is simply a measure of how fast money is circulating.
You need to be looking at that actual allocation of the wealth, as the rich like to use a myriad of loopholes to obfuscate their acquisitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
So you are explaining why the rich get less than what I calculated because GDP is overestimated while the way I calculated income of median people is solid.
Thanks for helping to make my argument.
The whole point is people are obsessed by the rich having ridiculous wealth on paper because of owning companies, but them owning companies does not take anything away from society. The factories produce goods for people and who receive the goods is determined by who buys the goods which is determined mainly by income, not wealth.
Or let me put it in different words: Let’s say you and I have the same wage across our lives. I save third of my paycheck for my entire life to build up savings. I only buy what I need. You spend yours on luxuries every month. After 40 years, is it unfair I have a lot of money and you don’t, since you spent it all? Should I be taxed more then you? We calculated what the income of the rich is above. The reason they have so much wealth is because instead of spending it on luxuries, they not only save it, but invest it. Investing does not give them sports car or better lifestyle. It helps produce more goods for the people that spend their money. It helps everyone become richer by increasing the overall economic output.
And yes, they get a share of this increased output as calculated above for helping make it by investing instead of spending their money on lavish parties, exotic trips or whatever you would spend that kind of money on.
No. Not even close. I’m explaining that GDP is a terrible metric to look at this problem. You need to look at wealth holdings. And the rich own basically all wealth.
So this is wrong in two ways. The first bit with “wealth on paper” is wrong, because the rich own the wealth. Loads of it are tied up in stocks, sure, but it is still wealth. And they use it like we use other fiat currencies, so to them stocks are just as “real” as USD is “real”.
The second is that the economy is a finitely expandable pool that is itself finite. So it is ultimately a zero sum game.
There is a limited number of hot dogs that can be sold in a year. Every hot dog sold by vendor A is a hotdog that cannot be sold by vendor B. You can advertise and brainwash the population into buying more hotdogs, but there is a limit to how many people will buy hotdogs. Every stock that is owned by rich asshat A is a stock that cannot be owned by worker B.
So yes, the rich owning all the wealth directly takes away from the rest of us.
“Who is able to buy X” isn’t a relevant question to the problem of wealth inequality/hoarding.
This analogy immediately falls apart, because I earn about $40/hr.
Bezos collects the equivalent of about $8,000,000/hr.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeff-bezos-made-over-7-172628289.html
That is grotesque. It is not the same wage. The stock market, the economy, and all the wealth is owned by the rich.
We need to fix this.
The only taxes we should have should be a land value tax, and a pollution/carbon tax.
The stock market doesn’t increase economic output, not do I care if it does. Economic output should not be the goal. Sustainable human survival should be.
If sustainable survival is your only goal, go live in a forest. People can survive without factories.
As for your ridiculous hot dog analogy, are you saying as it is now, everyone in the world has as many hotdogs as they want? If not, there is obviously value in making more.
Also, I don’t care how many times you say GDP is not a good metric because it is not fitting your narrative. It is a good upper bound on how much value is produced. You can’t wish it away just because it proves you wrong.
I’m saying it should be the goal of the economy instead of the current situation in which the only goal is everlasting, ever growing profit.
And I would go live in the woods if I could, but I can’t afford to do that.
I am saying that there is a finite amount of hotdogs that can be sold per unit of time. Therefore it is a zero sum game. Therefore acquisition of wealth means taking away wealth from others.
It doesn’t prove me wrong. You’ve seen the above graph. You know the wealth is allocated in the hands of the rich. The GDP is irrelevant.
I’ve explained it to you twice now, and if it is beyond your graph then that’s on you.
There is a finite amount of hotdogs that can be sold and we are selling FAR FEWER than that. So no, it is not a zero sum game.
And you claimed GDP is irrelevant twice without any argumentation. I provided detailed argumentation why wealth is far less relevant than income.