this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
852 points (99.5% liked)

News

23266 readers
3281 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
852
An excess of billionaires is destabilising politics – just as academics predicted (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The concept of “elite overproduction” was developed by social scientist Peter Turchin around the turn of this century to describe something specific: too many rich people for not enough rich-person jobs. It’s a byproduct of inequality: a ton of poor people, sure, but also a superfluity of the wealthy, without enough positions to house them in the influence and status to which they think themselves entitled. In a modern context, that would mean senior positions in the government and civil service, along with the top tier of finance and law, but Turchin tested the hypothesis from ancient Rome to 19th-century Britain. The names and nature of the contested jobs and titles changed; the pattern remained. Turchin predicted in 2010 that by the 2020s it would be destabilising US politics.

Turchin didn’t specify exactly how much wealth puts you in a situation with an overproduced elite, but he didn’t mean debt-laden students; he didn’t mean MPs; he meant, for brevity, billionaires or the top 1%. When a lot of your media are billionaire-owned, those media sources become endlessly inventive in taking the heat off billionaires, nipping criticism in the bud by pilfering its vocabulary and throwing it back at everyone.

Elon Musk could never have got himself elected into office in the US. But as the cost-cutting tsar, a made-up role Trump has promised him, he would exert extraordinary power to cause pain, with the only choice left to citizens being whether or not to hug it. Another billionaire donor, John Paulson, has been floated for the treasury secretary job, and Trump has a track record of rewarding big-ticket donors with a seat at the table – the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman boasted in print about his role in the new North America Free Trade Agreement negotiations in 2018, and as part of Trump’s “strategic and policy forum” during the 2017 administration.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I truly believe the world would be a much better place if there was a clear cutoff for wealth. But of course, there would still be weasles out there circumventing such measures. Greed is such an incredibly harmful thing.

Not a single redeeming thing about billionaires. Not a single one. Their "philanthropy" would be entirely unneeded, if they simply paid their fair share back to society, without which they wouldn't have what they have in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago

if we're imagining a better place why not go further? private ownership over collective production is the only way such gross amounts of wealth are possible.

A 100% tax bracket is fine and all, but why don't we reimagine the economy so that individuals aren't controlling so much of it? We built the infrastructure, we built the factories, we invented the machines and algorithms.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

Philanthropy is just bullshit at their level. My grandma giving to unicef is not the same as what they do. They want you to believe this. But they have the power to shape policies and society in their favour. It's always about money and power. Whether it's for tax, or anything else they can shape through philanthropy.

If you play android netrunner, there is an asset card used by Corporation called NGO front, and when I hear about billionaires philanthropy, I think of the small quote on this card "Who new non-profit could be so profitable."

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Oh is this a thing that academics predicted? Welcome to the 1840s, Guardian

Also blaming the billionaires for destabilizing the economy is only partially true. The system is unstable, but billionaires profit from "instability", so sure they cause it as much as the system causes billionaires and millionaires.

The problem isn't who owns gigantic companies like Walmart and amazon and google and apple, the problem is that they can be privately owned. The instability isn't a bug so much as a feature. Its not the individuals, it's the system. Individuals can make adjustments, sometimes very critical ones but the system doesn't pick winners based on who does the best at adhering to externalized ideals, it picks winners based on who can create the most profit for owners, profit made of the immense amount of collected time and energy siphoned off of workers.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I love that the headline says An excess of billionaires is” implying excess is the collective noun for billionaires. And I think that is perfect. An excess of billionaires.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

Kind of like a murder of crows, but with greed.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

All these billionaires are making me hungry.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

So we make a day like the purge but instead of weapons you have to eat the 1%

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago

[Sharpens guillotine with revolutionary intent]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Seems like a good time to remind people of this excellent (enraging) visualization:
https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

there are obvious, accessible solutions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The problem isn’t billionaires per se, the problem is not taxing people at higher income levels enough. People with higher incomes will do the rational thing and work towards self-preservation. It’s up to governments to work towards social stability, which is the point of civilization. It’s up to people to hold their governments accountable via democratic action. This model works in a lot of instances, but maligned processes can make it fail.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You sweet summer child. You think billionaires don't control things?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I am not saying that. I am saying that if you take a really rich person and and really poor person, and switch their places, then there’s no guarantee that anything effectively changes about society because innate self preservation tendencies enables us to make similar rational decisions. Systems need to counteract these self preservation tendencies because often times these tendencies can be ruinous to the system they benefit from. Look at everything happening now, for example

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I appreciate you not escalating in response to my snarky comment with more snark or sarcasm.

On the subject: I agree that the system needs to motivate certain behaviors and disincentives others. But from the current point onwards in our cursed reality... I see no way this transition to such a system does not involve a violent revolution/uprising. I don't see how we can even maintain such a system in the future without threat of violence towards those that put profits before everything else. I believe this because it took violence to take back 40 hour work weeks and paid vacations. Those seem trivial compared to a system overhaul from the current starting point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Three words: tax the rich

[–] [email protected] 129 points 1 week ago (2 children)

One billionaire is an excess.

One cannot earn that much money without exploiting workers.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I'd argue against the word "earn" even. One cannot earn one billion dollars at all.

Nobody deserves $1 billion when it would take a teacher about 20,000 years to make the same amount. And it's not earned if it's not deserved.

But that's just semantic ranting, you're right.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 days ago

Even the best teacher on Earth can only teach so many students a year. You can't become a billionaire without being able to 'scale up'.

But, for example, someone who invents something that makes a common manufacturing process just a few % more efficient, can affect millions if not billions of products that millions if not billions of people around the world buy. Even a small increase in profit margin can aggregate to a huge amount of increased wealth.

If you create that level of aggregate value, then you absolutely have earned that aggregate sum.

Also, it is literally not possible to become a billionaire by simply underpaying employees. That'd be the same kind of linear increase used in all of the dumb 'if you made $X every day for thousands of years (and interest didn't exist for some reason)' analogies, so I know the people who argue this do understand that linear growth doesn't get you there in a lifetime.

P.S. if employees were such an automatic profit source, why does downsizing exist? If labor is a profit source, firing people is throwing money away.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

While I agree, billionaires don't just have a 10+ figure checking account. Most of their networth is in non-liquid assets.

Which is why we should tax unrealized gains over a certain amount, and loans against those unrealized gains.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Owning that much of a company that is valued that highly is still damaging to society, even if it isn't liquid cash. Even putting aside their ability to take out loans with the shares as collateral, if the company is really worth that much it should be owned by a larger number of people with each taking a reasonably sized share to ensure that decisions are not made selfishly.

Taxing unrealised gains also hurt working class people dabbling in the stock market to try and improve their circumstance. IMO once you reach a net worth of $1B you get a pat on the back that you won captalism, and a 200% tax rate on anything beyond that to force you to give it up. No one person should own and control so much of a company if it truely has so much value, divide it among those that created the value i.e. the employees.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

No, I realized that after I wrote it and did the lazy thing and didn't edit.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just like academics predicted based on repeated patterns throughout the recorded human history

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Let them eat cake!" (Which Marie-Antoinette never said.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

It wasn't great though, the American Gilded age translation would be, "Let them eat sawdust bread".

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When people say humans are bad at big numbers and you see all those "this is how big a billion is!" They do indeed pack a punch.

This one packs the biggest, to me, though.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

As much as I love Tom Scott and it's a fantastic visual/temporal representation, I doubt a lot of people have the patience.

I like "1 Million seconds is 11 days, 1 Billion seconds is 31 years" as a more succinct example.

One person earning $3600/hr, 24/7, without spending any of it, would take 31 years to become a billionaire.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

When money gives a handful of individuals more power than the rest of society, what could possibly go wrong?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Keep it up, and soon the masses will destabilize the meat from their bones.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The thesis also elicited that elite overproduction tends to favor political change in the dispossessed elite's favor

It posits most revolutions, including communist revolutions, were pushed by elites who weren't given the station they were promised.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

That's what will happen to the Trumpublican Party when its figurehead is gone. They'll spend years clawing each other to pieces to fill the yuge void.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I warned you about the tendency for wealth to accumulate under capitalism bro!!!

I told you dawg!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It keeps hapening!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

This just in: Bathroom breaks cost 200 million dollars a year in lost productivity.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

turn of the century

2010

😭

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

Almost a quarter way through this century

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Theres this dazzling student of Hegel that has a few novel ideas about just that. You may have heard of him . . .

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children) 
s/An\ excess/The\ existence/
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Never thought I'd see communist regex getting downvoted on lemmy