Random musings...Greed and the 1%...
It is quite the fashion, now days, to desire the demise of the super rich, or the upper 1%. It also seems to be the not so rich who are the most dedicated to that cause. But, there is another party dedicated to that cause, too...government. How does government use the dislike of the upper 1%? Well, divide and rule.
A free market doesn't really require government micromanagement. That government would only have the duty of protecting the rights of the markets participants. But a government with socialist aspirations, and that seems to be every government in the world, must necessarily micromanage in order to provide social services. In some countries these services are bundled under one label, for example "Social Net". The problem is that these social services cost great sums money.
Normally governments don't earn money, and tend to let their central banks just print the money they need, or borrow from other governments who just print the money they need. Printing seems to be the main cause of inflation...not only of the amount of money, but also, and maybe more importantly, a country's debt.
As an aside, since our system of currency seems to be based on debt, then it stands to reason that in debt is where it's real value lies. It's something we don't learn in school, but the rich still seem to know.
One could say...It really doesn't matter how good a tool is if we don't know how to use it.
The upper 1% is possibly the number one wedge used to divide the population. Everything else is more or less icing and decoration, or just camouflage for the technique being used...divide and rule. It's as if those who envy the wealth of the upper 1% are trying to make everyone else believe the 1% are somehow criminal, at least morally so. The wedge is being politically driven, and the people seem to be swallowing it hook, line and sinker.
Thinking about this leads me to believe that, yes, the rich may be greedy, but the not so rich are full of envy towards them and envy is the result of unfulfilled greed. So maybe we could just assume that greed is the fuel which drives all our economies.
It has been said, in so many ways, that those who desire nothing more that they already have are the most happy.
Just random musings...
Oh - welcome back! You bring a lot of interesting approaches to the game!
Firstly, I've read my Marx and I don't think the socialist/communist idea itself is wrong at all. The problem seems to be human nature: it's a fine theoretical construct that doesn't work in reality. Because even in such a system, people try to enrich themselves, gain advantages and abuse their power.
Then I don't consider the 1% mentioned, the super-rich, to be criminal and indecent per se. On the contrary. Some of these tycoons actually do a lot of good without talking about it. Wealth understood as responsibility can be a good thing (they are not dependent on the mills of bureaucracy, like a state authority...)
Thank you!
I'm with you on the human nature thing, but I see only one aspect as being, maybe even, evil, and that's the people who seem to desire power, work hard to gain that power and then abuse it. This seems to be most observable in the political class.
I also see as not so positive the people who seem to just let it happen without much resistance. But, on the other hand tax advisors didn't just appear for no reason. I think they are here because, at least the people who can afford their service want to avoid as much tax debt as possible. That, I would say, is a form of resistance against the ones who are presently exercising power over the people.
Interesting enough, though, paying taxes is the one thing that every one...the 99%...seems to agree is worth not doing. But in the same breath, every one will advocate things like socialism, war, etc. In other words they want their government to provide certain expensive services, but would like to avoid paying their "fair share".
It seems to me that the 99%, instead of complaining, should be observing, especially, the very rich families. At some point in the rich family's history, someone had to have started acquiring wealth and must have involved his, or her, family in the process. I think that the whole family not only worked towards keeping the acquired wealth, but actively worked to expand it...even now. It's classical teamwork. It's the point that us 99% seem to be missing. If the whole family works towards that one goal, then that family could feasibly protect it's members from the effects of possible social disadvantages.