1) I’m bored. Let’s break this down.
For one, there has never been a society in which there has not been a gap between the wealthy and the poor. It doesn’t exist. Even in tribal societies gaps existed between the most and least merited members reflected by accumulation of assets
For one, there has never been a society in which there has not been a gap between the wealthy and the poor. It doesn’t exist. Even in tribal societies gaps existed between the most and least merited members reflected by accumulation of assets
2) Attempts at societies to create equality, no matter how small the scale, invariably devolve into a power/wealth differential, as the majority surrenders their authority to a ruling minority to manage society, at which point the ruling minority enriches themselves. Every. Time.
3) Cults? Communes? Somebody’s at the head, banging the gavel or shaking a bell or some such shit, and even without ‘wealth’ in the cash sense they acquire privilege and benefits that exceed other members, be it access to women, more private and luxurious living quarters, etc.
4) But, back to the main assertion, that without billionaires there wouldn’t be poverty.
Let’s break down what this is *really* saying. That the wealth accumulation that creates billionaires creates poverty hand in hand.
Let’s break down what this is *really* saying. That the wealth accumulation that creates billionaires creates poverty hand in hand.
5) I reject this notion, and offer a counter-assertion.
That the centralization and empowerment of authority that can create billionaires in turn creates poverty.
Bet y’all didn’t see THAT coming.
That the centralization and empowerment of authority that can create billionaires in turn creates poverty.
Bet y’all didn’t see THAT coming.
6) I can’t remember where I saw it, but there was a joke being passed around about medeival conservatives, wherein peasants working a dung farm talk about how the nobility worked their way there, that it was capitalism at work, etc.
7) Obviously at face value it was sarcastic and satire, but its worth noting that during what we know as the dark ages and early feudal ages, the nobility had such concentrated power in their hands that they effectively OWNED the peasants on their land.
8) The wealth gap certainly existed between that of the lord and that of the peasants of his land. But was it due to wealth? Or was it due to the power held, through hereditary privilege and force of arms? It sure as hell wasn’t capitalism creating that wealth gap.
9) In fact, the domination of the nobility over the peasantry didn’t fully end until the creation of a merchant class facilitating commerce rose hand in hand with the devolution of the authority of the crown and church.
10) The Renaissance wasn’t just about a flourishing of culture, art, and science. It was also the beginning of the decline of papal and noble authority which had enshrined the nobility’s wealth.
11) Furthermore, poverty begins to wane in Europe at the same time as what the OP would consider ‘billionaires’ such as the Medici family begins to rise.
12) The satirized and mocked ‘trickle down economics’ is often portrayed as the concept that by making ultra-wealthy people that their wealth will fall to others.
This is a false characterization of the concept.
This is a false characterization of the concept.
13) What is being asserted is that as societies allow wealth to be distributed more freely, while some of it will accumulate in the hands of the wealthy more will land in the hands of those who would normally be impoverished.
14) It is the CONTROL of the wealth that invariably creates the billionaires at the expense of those becoming impoverished.
Even control with the goal of reducing this poverty inevitably backfires and creates more ultrawealthy, or so the belief goes.
Even control with the goal of reducing this poverty inevitably backfires and creates more ultrawealthy, or so the belief goes.
15) And it is a belief I share.
Let’s look at the on face value virtuous goal of the Clinton administration to put everyone in homes, and creating subprime mortgages.
Let’s look at the on face value virtuous goal of the Clinton administration to put everyone in homes, and creating subprime mortgages.
16) The Clinton administration uses central authority that had been accumulated in the government to have banks finance the purchase of homes by poorer people than would normally purchase homes.
Obviously, this was risky and expensive for the banks.
Obviously, this was risky and expensive for the banks.
17) So, that same central authority allowed the banks to shove all of their loan risks onto Fannie May and Freddie Mac, and to offload the loans by the creation of mortgage-backed securities.
‘But that sounds like authority’s being lowered?’ You might query.
‘But that sounds like authority’s being lowered?’ You might query.
18) In reality, the banks (which were required to give these loans by law, keep in mind) who benefitted most were the largest banks.
Once the financial crisis happened, those large banks were the ones who survived, and grew by absorbing their smaller competitors who didn’t.
Once the financial crisis happened, those large banks were the ones who survived, and grew by absorbing their smaller competitors who didn’t.
19) The government, starting with the Clinton administration, then the Bush administration, and then culminating in the Obama administration used its central authority to in effect rig the game so that the wealthiest in society became even wealthier, wealth was more concentrated
20) Was this intentional? Who knows. Maybe, maybe not. I certainly don’t blame the dumbass declaring that without billionaires there wouldn’t be poverty.
But I do blame any who believe that any attempts to eliminate the ultrawealthy by centralization wouldn’t exasterbate it.
But I do blame any who believe that any attempts to eliminate the ultrawealthy by centralization wouldn’t exasterbate it.
/end
