I'm inclined to agree on stressing the structural issues more. But if we're interested in getting the full picture, there's a causal feedback loop to recognize that helps explain why the system is so resilient to change, the rich go such long ways in their effort to defend their wealth.

I think you're over-complicating the issue with technical jargon. You say you're against rent; but if you're not against people accumulating property, and you are against government regulation (command economy), what's to stop owners from renting their property? — Janus

The technical language is necessary to properly understand the nuance of the situation, but I can try to dumb it down for you a little.

I'm not against people having some property. I am against people accumulating property, as in, property ending up more and more concentrated. I'm against that in the sense that that is a bad end. The question at hand is what means lead to that end. What is going wrong, deontologically, that is causing that bad outcome, consequentially?

I think the answer to that is government enforcement of certain kinds of contracts. People are free to let others use their property, and other people are free to give them money for that if they want, but in absence of a valid contract someone can't actually owe money for the use of someone's property. If they just decided to not pay, that would be legally okay, and the owner would have no recourse. As such, this would be untenable as a widespread business arrangement. Nobody would ever rent to strangers who can't be trusted and can't be legally obligated to pay them anything.

Apparently he also believes in smiling butterflies whose flapping wings cause an outbreak of lovely summer weather. An optimistic fellow. Smiling at the old woman lying in the street who just got run over by a bicycle will surely ripple out to the 24th century. — Bitter Crank

I don't think butterflies can smile. Kind of like you. :love:

it's worth understanding exactly who they are.
— Xtrix

Brett denies being interested in the question "who they are"; he says it is your question. — Bitter Crank

I'm not too concerned with what Brett thinks given his line of discussion so far. The question is simple enough: Who are the so-called 1%? Misleading, because it's most like 0.1%, but the "masters of the universe" comment is enough to contextualize what is meant: concentrations of wealth and power in the United States.

You've already supplied sources and given concise analyses, so where the confusion lies I have no idea.

The undifferentiated wealth sloshing around in the trough in 2020 has a history. You can trace the development of wealth backwards to sometime in the medieval period, probably not much before then. There are, for instance, a few companies in the world that have been in continuous existence since 1200. Some of the wealth in England goes back to grants that William the Conqueror (aka William the Bastard) made after he won the battle of Hastings in 1066. Some of the valuable land in New York City is owned by descendants of Dutch settlers before New Amsterdam became New York. Land is the original wealth. From land one can extract rent, food and fiber (like wheat and wool). England accumulated a wad of wealth by exporting fine wool to manufacturers on the continent. Later, it was coal and iron. The reason the British claimed North America was to have the land from which to extract wealth. The Germans wanted Lebensraum, and came close to getting most of Europe. Land is wealth. Nations are willing to go way out of their way to get it. — Bitter Crank

This is excellent. It's very important to know the history if we're to have any chance of fully understanding our current situation. There have always been those in power (since at least the neolithic revolution and the settling into villages), a "ruling class." Power has been taken through various means: brute force, greater numbers, the use of horses (or elephants or...), better weapons, monopolies on goods and services, an excess of capital, indebtedness, etc. etc. etc.

Our current situation, where the "ruling class" (the so-called "masters of the universe") don't take power by force but rather through their massive wealth and resources, gained through a system whose rules they've taken advantage of (and shaped in their favor) -- rules like private ownership -- and which they rely on the state to enforce, is what we are questioning.

During the neoliberal era, in reaction to the New Deal and the movements of the 60s, corporate interests have won out and we're living the results. The statistics since the late 70s onwards in areas of productivity, manufacturing, real wages, union participation, wealth inequality, etc., all tell the story. The RAND corporation estimated in a study on wealth transference that about $47 trillion has been moved from the bottom 90% of incomes to the top 10% in the last 40 years -- as just one example.

Nothing you don't know, but worth keeping in mind when asking the question about the 0.1%.

If the 1% are parasites, it is not because they have any kind of behavioural disposition of any sort: they are parasites by virtue of their occupying a structural position in society with disparity as it is. The most lovely, talented, hard-working, virtuous, kind, and giving person could belong to this class: they would still be a fucking parasite insofar as their wealth would objectively be built off the backs of others. — StreetlightX

This is exactly right.

My expectation is that the 1% are ordinary people as far as psychology goes. — Pfhorrest

I'm not so sure about this. I don't think they're genetic mutants or that the quality of their brains are somehow different -- so maybe "psychology" isn't right. To put it simplistically, I wonder about their philosophy. As I said earlier, my hunch would be that most are neoliberal capitalists, with a good portion Christian or otherwise secularists.

Why should we care about their beliefs, moralities, attitudes, etc? Because they're the ones making the major decisions that will influence the course of human history. Taking climate change, if most of the people responsible for rising emissions are motivated by personal gain and greed, disregarding the future consequences because God told Noah there wouldn't be another flood -- that's relevant. So their demographics are especially worth looking into.

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. To say they're subjected to the "same laws and penalties" as anyone else is naive. Yes, according to cypto-neoliberals like you, "government is the problem," and so it's no surprise that you want to divert the focus to "bureaucrats." Very typical.

My only contention is that the so-called 1% are not your masters. Elon Musk is unable to assert any control over you, and if he did, he would be subject to legal penalty. So if a person of this evil, (and in the last analysis) psychopathic class is unable to assert control over you, how is he at the same time your master?

At any rate, I become suspicious of hatred when it becomes indistinguishable from envy.



Sure, it’s easier to purchase favor from those in power when one is wealthy. But it is impossible to purchase favor when favor isn’t for sale. The reason the so-called 1% are able to seek their advantage from those in power is because those in power give it to them.

I would rather live under robber barons than under the consistent bureaucratic scrutiny of moral busybodies. The moral busybodies rule over us for our own good and with the approval of their conscience.

But one impression I have of people with substantial wealth is that they tend to have their radar up for threats to their social, financial, political status quo. After all, their wealth may be threatened in the event of social turmoil, or they may at least be inconvenienced. If they feel entitled to deference, they won't take inconvenience lightly. — Bitter Crank

I think you've hit on something that simply has to be true once you've gained real power. Otherwise i's like being part of the board of directors and not caring about stock value. But this trait is an interesting one, because then the question becomes: which way would you prefer trends to go? Where are you going to put your power and resources? To a movement that challenges the status quo (which is working for you) or a countermovement? Fairly obvious, to me.

I think the economic externalities to the rest of society is the main reason why we shouldn't allow concentrated wealth to exist, but I think it's a worthwhile additional critique. — Saphsin

Externalities -- a VERY important point, yes.



This isn't quite what I was looking for in terms of differences in psychology -- I meant more their philosophies. But regardless, it's not shocking to learn.

Even the bad things. Because people in general are not shining bastions of morality, but will exploit a situation to their benefit when given the chance, even at someone else's expense, and then try to rationalize away why what they're doing is perfectly fine. — Pfhorrest

I think it's worth diverting the discussion a bit by discussing these rationalizations.

A criminal trying to rationalize his crimes would be laughed at in court, but with enough wealth one can afford the most complex rationalizations from the intelligentsia -- from the likes of Milton Friedman, for example...very nice person, likable, well-spoken, scholarly, etc. But a complete apologist for the ruling class. Employing the intellectuals is a very important piece of all this. It supplies the excuses they tell themselves and others, quite sincerely. So again we're in the realm of, essentially, philosophy. And we see how this propaganda tickles down to millions of people, including several on this forum.

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. T
— Xtrix

Care to back that up, or is “essentially” your get out of jail card? — Brett

There's overwhelming evidence for this. Excellent scholarship has been conducted. Tom Ferguson is one of my favorites. Worth checking out his "Golden Rule" book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition.

By "essentially" I mean de facto, but it's not absolute. Contradictions do exist. Government and the corporate sector aren't completely the same. But when you see who's allowing those in government to take power, through the cost of campaigning and the access to media, there's really no question who's in charge and who's beholden to whom. True, with Bernie Sanders and some others, that's beginning to change a little in terms of camping funding, but the remaining structures stand. Without the support of those in power, it's extremely hard (though not impossible) to break through. In such a system, the vast majority will be in the pockets of those who have the resources and own the needed institutions.

The state has the monopoly on violence. But they essentially own the state. To say they're subjected to the "same laws and penalties" as anyone else is naive. Yes, according to cypto-neoliberals like you, "government is the problem," and so it's no surprise that you want to divert the focus to "bureaucrats." Very typical.

My only contention is that the so-called 1% are not your masters. Elon Musk is unable to assert any control over you, and if he did, he would be subject to legal penalty. — NOS4A2

Even put in these deliberately ridiculous terms, yes he does. Not only by the impact he has on his workers, on the automobile industry, on the stock market, on lobbying for legislation that he deems favorable, etc. -- all that has an impact on society of which you and I are a part. In the same way of singing out Mitch McConnell and saying "He doesn't have any control over you." Sure, if you mean coming to my house and pointing a gun at my head and giving me orders. But in that sense, no one has ANY control over me. But that's an absurd way to think about political and economic power.

It's also funny that you choose Elon Musk. Why not Jeff Bezos? Does he not control our lives to a large degree? Of course he does. Same for the Waltons. Same for the boards of directors across the country. Same for the thousands of lobbyists in Washington representing the interests of these privileged people.

At any rate, I become suspicious of hatred when it becomes indistinguishable from envy. — NOS4A2

This projecting on others of emotions of "hatred" or "envy" is also predictable and tired. I have no hatred or envy for these people. They can keep their money. What I want to understand (and change) is the system which produces such inequality of power and wealth. This is something you and other state-corporate apologists don't want to understand.

The reason the so-called 1% are able to seek their advantage from those in power is because those in power give it to them. — NOS4A2

Right, so once again put the blame on weak politicians and government, the one system in which we have at least some say. All the while completely ignoring the structural aspects which makes it nearly impossible to gain positions of major political power without first going through the filtration process of camping finance and major media use (both in the hands of the corporate sector). So yes, there are plenty of honest, brave politicians who refuse to accept money or give corporate-approved speeches to get a large audience, but we don't hear from them. Why? Because without conforming, they don't advance. A point people like you also conveniently ignore in favor of licking the asses of your corporate masters.

I would rather live under robber barons — NOS4A2

What a shocker!

As I said earlier, my hunch would be that most are neoliberal capitalists, with a good portion Christian or otherwise secularists. — Xtrix

I agree, but that also sounds like a good description of much of the American populace as a whole.

And we see how this propaganda tickles down to millions of people — Xtrix

This sounds like a good explanation for the above.

No, Bezos does not control your life and is master of no one. You willingly use his services or you do not. You willingly engage with his company or not. You willingly work for him or you do not. Having an “impact on society” is not the same as being in control of other human beings, nor is it confined to the ultra-wealthy, and no amount of word-twisting can alter that. So it’s utter nonsense to suggest these people control anything beyond their own company and property.

You have less of a say in the government than you do in the market. And I doubt you know or have any say in where your tax money goes, unless of course you are living off the government’s plundered cash already. But assuming you also pay taxes instead of just fellate your master, try forgetting to submit them to your government and see how much of a say you have then.

American 1 percenters operate in a global ecosystem. Does it really make sense to think about how they reflect something uniquely American?

As I said earlier, my hunch would be that most are neoliberal capitalists, with a good portion Christian or otherwise secularists.
— Xtrix

I agree, but that also sounds like a good description of much of the American populace as a whole. — Pfhorrest

That depends when it comes to the neoliberal part, at least according to polls. But there is still a good percentage, I imagine. But even if it is like many others who don't have as much power, we have to the account for the special problems and issues that arise from those who do have such power -- like, as has already been pointed out, the hyper-sensitivity to threats to the status quo, etc.

This sounds like a good explanation for the above. — Pfhorrest

Indeed. It's striking, too, that the people most ardently defending the corporate sector are the ones which are most negatively effected by their policies. That's quite an impressive feat.

↪Xtrix

No, Bezos does not control your life and is master of no one. — NOS4A2

Like I said, in your childish world of course not. I have no direct contact with Bezos, etc. So if we're going to absurdly restrict the definition of "control" to your level, then he has no control over my life. But then, again to you, neither does Trump. Neither does the governor. Neither does your boss at work. Etc. Just tired word games to avoid the obvious: Bezos and other powerful people have an inordinate amount of power, and they make decisions that directly impact all of our lives. And not just United States citizens, but the world community and future generations as well.

You willingly use his services or you do not. — NOS4A2

Your entire worldview is so warped it should be considered a psychological pathology.

As if it's so simple as to be a matter of whether one shops on Amazon or not. What a joke.

So it’s utter nonsense to suggest these people control anything beyond their own company and property. — NOS4A2

Yeah, because there's no such thing as lobbying and no such thing as externalities. Just honest, hard working innovators and businessmen who operate their businesses.

Such pleasant delusions.

You have less of a say in the government than you do in the market. — NOS4A2

I was waiting for the "market" to come up, as is typical for neoliberal corporate apologists. But I never mentioned "markets" -- we're talking about the corporate sector and the government.

(1) Within corporations, you have zero say in the decisions. Zero.

(2) Within the government, you have some say, especially in local politics with direct access to town councils, state representatives, state senators, etc. When you get to the federal level, you have almost none, with the exception of voting. Not much, by any means.

But compare this to how a major corporation works. As a worker, you can willingly work or willingly quit. The rest of the major decisions is in the hands of the major shareholders (owners), the board of directors whom they vote in, and the top administrators whom they choose. None of this has anything to do with "markets."

But by all means keep defending those wonderful robber barons who you're eager to live under. I'm sure you're one of them, after all. Oh, wait.

You're a prime example of the extraordinary effectiveness of corporate propaganda. (Let me save you the time: "No, YOU'RE the one who's brainwashed by Marxism, socialism...." etc etc.) Keep trying. Go donate to Trump's election fraud fund while you're at it.

The technical language is necessary to properly understand the nuance of the situation, but I can try to dumb it down for you a little.

I'm not against people having some property. I am against people accumulating property, as in, property ending up more and more concentrated. I'm against that in the sense that that is a bad end. The question at hand is what means lead to that end. What is going wrong, deontologically, that is causing that bad outcome, consequentially?

I think the answer to that is government enforcement of certain kinds of contracts. People are free to let others use their property, and other people are free to give them money for that if they want, but in absence of a valid contract someone can't actually owe money for the use of someone's property or else people would be taking the law into their own hands if agreements that were made were not honoured. If they just decided to not pay, that would be legally okay, and the owner would have no recourse. As such, this would be untenable as a widespread business arrangement. Nobody would ever rent to strangers who can't be trusted and can't be legally obligated to pay them anything. — Pfhorrest

There was no need to "dumb it down"; it's a very simple idea to begin with; indeed I would say a very simplistic idea. How would it be possible to create a situation where a society had no laws in place to enforce only certain kinds of contracts? It might be possible not to enforce payment of rental of property, but then no one would rent their property. And that goes for any kind of property; vehicles, equipment of all kinds, plant and machinery not just real estate. A large part of the economy would collapse just from that act alone with unpredictable flow-on effects throughout an already fragile system.

Non-enforcement of interest would be a much greater problem still in an economy where money is literally loaned into existence. Your idea, although very nice in principle, is totally impractical; even if it were allowed that people would ever accept it, which of course they would not. A transition to such a state of affairs would seem to be practically impossible from where we are today without collapsing the entire system. It would be like asking a human to keep living without breathing. You seem to be just enamored with your idea (well not really yours since you are by no means the first to come up with it); while giving no consideration to the unforeseen, indeed unforeseeable given the complexity of the system, consequences if it were to be put in place.

How would it be possible to create a situation where a society had no laws in place to enforce only certain kinds of contracts? — Janus

There are already certain kinds of contracts that are not legally valid. You can’t sell yourself into slavery, for example.

It might be possible not to enforce payment of rental of property, but then no one would rent their property. — Janus

That is the intention.

A transition to such a state of affairs would seem to be practically impossible from where we are today without collapsing the entire system. — Janus

I don’t advocate just suddenly switching to my system, but transitioning there gradually using existing governmental apparatuses. Namely, an additional tax on net income from rent and interest, that goes negative for people who pay more than they earn from it. Start that tax low, then gradually ramp it up to 100%. That creates a gradually increased incentive for rentiers to sell instead of rent, to avoid the extra tax. Once the tax is ramped up to 100%, the incentive is the same as if rental contracts were just invalid (because you can’t make money from renting out in either case), so you can just switch to that.

You seem to be just enamored with your idea; while giving no consideration to the unforeseen, indeed unforeseeable given the complexity of the system, consequences if it were to be put in place. — Janus

I have given extensive consideration to the consequences, and if we weren’t already off topic for this thread I would welcomed further questions as to how I would handle any consequent you think I haven’t considered.

There are already certain kinds of contracts that are not legally valid. You can’t sell yourself into slavery, for example. — Pfhorrest

Yes but contractual slavery is not an institution upon which we depend.

I don’t advocate just suddenly switching to my system — Pfhorrest

The idea that any individual could create a system that could foresee consequences in an economy so complex no one can even come to close to understanding it, let alone predicting its outcomes is simply hubris. I think you have a greatly exaggerated assessment of your abilities if you think that is possible. And as I said before it is not "your idea"; you are not the first to realize that financialization of an economy inexorably leads to concentration of money in the hands of a few.

I have given extensive consideration to the consequences, and if we weren’t already off topic for this thread I would welcomed further questions as to how I would handle any consequent you think I haven’t considered. — Pfhorrest

I'm not talking about foreseeable consequences, but the vastly greater number of unforeseeable consequences. Every foreseeable consequence you think you could take care of is like a hydra, that will produce another thousand unforeseeable consequences.

It makes me laugh to see people who think they can solve the world's problems from their armchair.

Apart from any of those considerations, anything like you suggest simply aint going to happen because people won't want it, so why waste your limited intellectual resources on toying with such ideas? You'd be better off getting out there and using you intellectual abilities to advocate for one simple positive practicable change you really believe in.

Yes but contractual slavery is not an institution upon which we depend. — Janus

You’re just begging the question if you’re implying that we do depend on rent and interest, i.e. there is no possible way to have a society without it.

And contractual slavery has been a common institution in the past. We got rid of it and society didn’t collapse.

The idea that any individual could create a system that could foresee consequences in an economy so complex — Janus

That’s why I advocate a gradual change. So that we can see the consequences as they start to emerge and react to them as needed. Even reversing course if necessary.

And as I said before it is not "your idea"; you are not the first to realize that financialization of an economy inexorably leads to concentration of money in the hands of a few. — Janus

I know that. I’m just owning up to my own version of it being my version, and not imputing my thoughts on anyone else who might disagree with my in varying degrees.

Apart from any of those considerations, anything like you suggest simply aint going to happen because people won't want ti, so why waste your limited intellectual resources on toying with such ideas? — Janus

That’s a just defeatist attitude. Let’s never try anything new even when everything old is failing all around us, because nobody will ever agree to try anything new.

How would we ever get anyone to consider trying some new idea without first talking about its merits?

You’re just begging the question if you’re implying that we do depend on rent and interest, i.e. there is no possible way to have a society without it.

And contractual slavery has been a common institution in the past. We got rid of it and society didn’t collapse. — Pfhorrest

There is no way to have the economy we have without rent and interest, and no foreseeable way to transition to an economy without it; that's what I'm saying. Humanity has never been captain of the ship; never been able to foresee the trajectory of the future: what makes you think it is more possible now, given how vastly more complex our situation is now?

Contractual slavery was never as central to the economy as rent and interest are today, and besides when institutional slavery was abolished, the desperate newly free could be exploited as cheap labour.

That’s a just defeatist attitude. Let’s never try anything new even when everything old is failing all around us, because nobody will ever agree to try anything new.

How would we ever get anyone to consider trying some new idea without first talking about its merits? — Pfhorrest

How are you going to go about convincing all the landlords and rental companies in the world to stop legally enforcing rental payments from their customers and tenants? I don't deny that making renting less and less attractive through taxation might work, if people would accept it, but any government who advocated such a move would likely not last long. And interest is a whole other can of worms since it is so central to the money system.

I'd love to see it happen, but it just ain't going to happen, because it's against the interests of so many people, and by no means just the mega-wealthy. People don't even want to give up a fraction of the lifestyles they've become accustomed to, even to ameliorate something as ominous a threat to our future as global warming. The only chance would be to greatly increase people's education and understanding of the world, but most people just don't seem to be that interested.

It makes me laugh to see people who think they can solve the world's problems from their armchair. — Janus

Watch out Janus, you’ll get cancelled.

Cancelled from what? Do you mean banned? If so, I doubt it. I don't believe this forum is so draconian. If I would be banned for saying that, well then I'd be happy not to participate here.

No, I mean the whole cancel culture.

“ Canceling, today, is used like a massive, informal boycott when someone or something in the public eye offends … or when we’re just over them.”

I'm afraid I'm not au fait with that. :smile:

There is no way to have the economy we have without rent and interest — Janus

Says who?

Think about it and you wont need authority to guarantee its right, youll see it for yourself. Abolition of rent, and particularly interest, being such integral parts of the present economy would obviously bring enormous changes. Enormous changes would mean we would no longer have the same economy. It's not diificult to understand.

Just as an example, say someone wants to start a new business but doesn't have the funds; they will need to borrow money, right? Who is going to lend anyone money interest-free?

when institutional slavery was abolished, the desperate newly free could be exploited as cheap labour. — Janus

Only because plans to grant them land from the plantations they had been working were scrapped,
basically substituting chattel slavery for rent-and-wage slavery. It’s precisely the lack of ownership of capita that made them such desperate cheap labor, and that was intentional on the part of the plantation owners who wanted to keep as close to slaves as they could.

How are you going to go about convincing all the landlords and rental companies in the world to stop legally enforcing rental payments from their customers and tenants? — Janus

There are more renters than landlords, so if we have a real democracy then we don’t need to convince the landlords. If we don’t have a real democracy, we need to do something about that first anyway.

The only chance would be to greatly increase people's education and understanding of the world — Janus

Like by talking to them and explaining why things like this would be good ideas worth trying? Like... what I’m doing now?

Just as an example, say someone wants to start a new business but doesn't have the funds; they will need to borrow money, right? Who is going to lend anyone money interest-free? — Janus

The point is to get the capital distributed enough that people don’t have to borrow in the first place. We went over that earlier in this thread already.

Like Janus I think this is just too simplistic as an alternative.
Assuming that factory X is owned by the workers and another factory, factory Y, is producing the same product and, for their own reasons, begin a price war, sacrificing their profits for more sales, driving the price down. The market responds and chooses the lower price. How does factory X respond in this market? What if their only hope is to invest in new equipment that enables them to produce the product for less? It means borrowing to invest in the long term. They need the money now, so they can’t save for it. Where do they get the capital? Who would have it?

In today’s world, they would have to borrow it from someone else who had been saving it. In a better world, they would be the ones who had been saving it in the first place. In our world it’s the people who own the factories etc who have the excess capital that everyone else borrows. In a better world where the people who own the factories etc are the same people who work them, they could just “borrow from themselves”.