But it hasn't been a bear market, and never is if you zoom out far enough. And the average American isn't (and many can't) investing much in the S&P, and so we're seeing massively increasing wealth inequality. Do you not see that as a problem to be addressed?
-
-
-
It's a problem, but IMHO capitalism is the solution. Also, if someone can't save, that's one thing; if they choose not to, that's very different. Finally these gains are often not at expense of others. E.g. Waltons got richer b/c Walmart appreciated thru creating tons of value.
-
Capitalism is the solution to wealth inequality? Please explain. And if people *en mass* are choosing not to save and that leads to them struggling financially, having trouble paying for healthcare, and suffering, that's a societal problem, not just the individuals problem.
-
We might be talking about different things. Capitalism contributes to wealth inequality, but it contributes even more to wealth. It's the rising tide that lifts everyone's boats. It's what makes the bottom half of this graph happen:pic.twitter.com/WVZXg2VfN0
-
so it makes useless things cheaper and basic important stuff only available to rich people. Capitalism is the source of inequality and a compounding force at that. A 10% gain for everyone is billions for a rich person and ~0 for poor people who can't save and can't invest.
-
Most of the things going up in price are the things where the government intevenes and messes up free market dynamics, and most of the things dropping are the ones where there's ton of capitalistic competition. The problem is govt intervention, not capitalism.
-
Yeah, not really. That's the US's problem, while capitalism is global. I have free healthcare and free education and still live in a capitalist society where the market would never provide it for free, and where there is still high inequality and growing. Govt is only stopguard
-
> I have free healthcare and free education These aren't free though -- at the end, someone's paying for these things. And that someone is generally the taxpayer.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
What do you think about inheritance tax?
-
I don't think it'll apply to my parents or me, but I'm not a fan. I think once you earn money, you should be able to do whatever you want with it (as long as it's legal).
-
Have you ever researched the impact of inheritance tax on economy? And if unemployment as some argue incentivizes laziness. What does inheriting billluons incentivize? Also, have looked at how velocity of money impacts economy and how the numbers you shared impact velocity.
-
I care about fairness more than impact. If a tax is unfair then I'm against it regardless of its impact. An extreme example: a one-time 90% tax on assets for 500 richest Americans would have a huge impact. And I'd benefit from that. But it'd be unfair so I'd be against it.
-
So let me get this straight.. you think that’s ok that the richest families grew their wealth 2,500% and middle class lost 3% during the same time while operating in one economy but inheritance tax is unfair. Mind-blowing...
-
First, it's not necessarily the same families. Some dropped out of the top few percent, and others came up. Second, this is wealth, not income. Income rose much less (chart below) Are you suggesting a cap on investment returns? Most of these investments are open to the public.pic.twitter.com/u0FVFMCHbh
-
I’m suggesting to have high inheritance tax over certain level. Investment always grow faster but not everyone can afford it. Over generations the playing field need to reset to increase options for everone in economy. And i suggest to read more on economics, velocity of money..
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I agree with your point that this is crap. 20 years ago I had nothing and now I have something, making my return infinite. I disagree with your example because the bottom 50 percentile is a lot more leveraged on the downside then the top.
-
Not sure what you mean by leveraged on the downside. Can you elaborate?
-
A 25% decrease in asset values (home/equities) leads the bottom 75% into negative net worth territory (100% decline in net worth). Also, the bottom 75% lack the savings to absorb a downturn and are a few paychecks away from insolvency.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yup. Great read.
-
I agree with your tweet. Unfortunately, nonsensical superficial slogans sell well.
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.