Where Do Billionaires Come From?

[georgephillip]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

This is idiotic.

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.
"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

That is absolutely retarded.

Market distribution of income, is in fact a given, because it's part of the market.

I don't give my money to the beggar at the street corner, because that beggar doesn't provide anything of value. Exxon does. Microsoft does. Walmart does.

This idea that you can just change the system, so that billionaires are no longer billionaires, because "the market is flexible", is retarded.

Of course it's a given. The whole reason the wealthy are wealthy, is because they provide something of value to the most people. The whole reason the poor are generally poor, is because they don't create much or anything of value.

This is exactly why, you can effectively redistribute wealth to poor people, and the vast vast majority end up poor again.

You take lottery winners, that end up with millions, and in 10 years, they are poor again.

There is no way to restructure the market, so that people can make bad choices, and produce little of value, and end up being wealthy.
Equally, there is only one way to restructure the market so that rich people don't end up rich... and that is to drive them out of the market, so they go and end up rich elsewhere.

As I said to last time, there were rich people in Cuba, before Castro. Restructuring the market, didn't make the poor people rich. It just made the rich people leave, and go be rich elsewhere in the world, while the people of Cuba ended up in object poverty for life.

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.
"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

That is absolutely retarded.

Market distribution of income, is in fact a given, because it's part of the market.

Do you believe income distribution among a country's population is determined by government structured features like patents and monopolies?

If patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs by $400 billion a year over "free market" prices, is that due to an "invisible hand" or campaign donations?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"In economics, income distribution is how a nation's total GDP is distributed amongst its population.[1]

"Income and its distribution have always been a central concern of economic theory and economic policy. Classical economists such as Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo were mainly concerned with factor income distribution, that is, the distribution of income between the main factors of production, land, labour and capital.

"Modern economists have also addressed this issue, but have been more concerned with the distribution of income across individuals and households. Important theoretical and policy concerns include the balance between income inequality and economic growth, and their often inverse relationship."

Income distribution - Wikipedia

 

[georgephillip]

Most billionaires were millionaires to start

I can think of one prominent example:

4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

The problem with billionaires is that we don't have enough of them.

Hooray for billionaires!

Exactly, who else will decide our futures in think tanks that draft the legislation that fuels societal wealth redistribution and wealth disparity?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

Three people now own more wealth than the bottom fifty percent of us in this country, link below. If this seems to be ok with us, then what's wrong with them eventually having sixty percent and on and on. What really great, wonderful things have these folks done to make them so deserving of this wealth. How many children were helped by Dr. Salk, who didn't patent his polio vaccine so he could be a billionaire? Other link below

The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Of The Country, Study Finds

How Much Money Did Jonas Salk Potentially Forfeit By Not Patenting The Polio Vaccine?

Market distribution of income, is in fact a given, because it's part of the market.

Due to lobbyists legislation...

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

Because wealth controls governance here....

China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US .

top 10% is a statistical facade , try the top 1%, or better yet, top point 1% , and get back to us on wealth inequity....

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You're asking if a meritocracy can exist in a 'casino capitalist' society

Rather grand Q Gator....

How many children were helped by Dr. Salk, who didn't patent his polio vaccine so he could be a billionaire?

A lot, his story is iconic....

~S~

Is it only lowlife, degenerate pieces of shit who care about the net worth of others?

 

[bripat9643]

Where Do Billionaires Come From?

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

name one who got it that way.

 

[georgephillip]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

 

[bripat9643]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

That's an idiotic conclusion since there wouldn't be any new prescription drugs without patent protection. The revenue from new drugs without a patent is zero.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where Do Billionaires Come From?

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

name one who got it that way.

I think you could make a good argument that Bill Gates did, at least in part. Having his software the exclusive software on all DOD computers early on did not hurt his cause.

 

[bripat9643]

Where Do Billionaires Come From?

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

name one who got it that way.

I think you could make a good argument that Bill Gates did, at least in part. Having his software the exclusive software on all DOD computers early on did not hurt his cause.

DOD expenditures when Microsoft first got started are close to zero.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where Do Billionaires Come From?

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

name one who got it that way.

I think you could make a good argument that Bill Gates did, at least in part. Having his software the exclusive software on all DOD computers early on did not hurt his cause.

DOD expenditures when Microsoft first got started are close to zero.

I was not talking about when they first got started.

Also, there is nothing wrong with manipulating government contracting to their advantage as long as they are not breaking the laws. We all manipulating contracts to our best advantage any time we can.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

 

[georgephillip]

Where Do Billionaires Come From?

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"When talking about the financial industry, Michael Bloomberg deserves special mention.

"In addition to ranking among the top ten billionaires, with more than $50 billion in assets, he now seems poised to enter the race for the Democratic nomination.

"Bloomberg’s great genius was to develop an important service for large traders.

"It provided them with terminals that give them information relevant to the economy and particular stocks and commodities faster than anyone else.

"This allows them to profit at the expense of less well-informed investors.

"If society is better-off from this innovation, it is hard to see how."

 

[sparky]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

Three people now own more wealth than the bottom fifty percent of us in this country, link below. If this seems to be ok with us, then what's wrong with them eventually having sixty percent and on and on. What really great, wonderful things have these folks done to make them so deserving of this wealth. How many children were helped by Dr. Salk, who didn't patent his polio vaccine so he could be a billionaire? Other link below

The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Of The Country, Study Finds

How Much Money Did Jonas Salk Potentially Forfeit By Not Patenting The Polio Vaccine?

Market distribution of income, is in fact a given, because it's part of the market.

Due to lobbyists legislation...

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

Because wealth controls governance here....

China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US .

top 10% is a statistical facade , try the top 1%, or better yet, top point 1% , and get back to us on wealth inequity....

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You're asking if a meritocracy can exist in a 'casino capitalist' society

Rather grand Q Gator....

How many children were helped by Dr. Salk, who didn't patent his polio vaccine so he could be a billionaire?

A lot, his story is iconic....

~S~

Is it only lowlife, degenerate pieces of shit who care about the net worth of others?

as well as it's only those true blue Americans that care about everyone getting an equal shot at the brass ring Looser

~S~

 

[bripat9643]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

Why, Father Government and 'the public' should own all patents of course...Ain't that right georgephillip ?

Yeah, because Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone. Government did that.

 

[georgephillip]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

Business Insider › more-rich-people-in-china-than-america...
Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Do you "see" how Chinese capitalists are "earning" their billions?

1 million dead and US$38 billion lost: the price of China’s air pollution

Capitalism generates wealth like no economic system ever; however, it allows a few parasites to hoard vast quantities of wealth by externalizing clean-up costs onto society as a whole.

Is that fair or just, or don't you care?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where Do Billionaires Come From?

Manipulating government contracting to their advantage.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"When talking about the financial industry, Michael Bloomberg deserves special mention.

"In addition to ranking among the top ten billionaires, with more than $50 billion in assets, he now seems poised to enter the race for the Democratic nomination.

"Bloomberg’s great genius was to develop an important service for large traders.

"It provided them with terminals that give them information relevant to the economy and particular stocks and commodities faster than anyone else.

"This allows them to profit at the expense of less well-informed investors.

"If society is better-off from this innovation, it is hard to see how."

It also helps less well-informed investors profit.

I work as a statistician for an Ag company, I work mostly with grain farmers, corn/soy/wheat. I provide them with data and analysis that helps them to profit more than the less well-informed farmers.

Is that unfair to the other farmers?

 

[sparky]

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

You cannot restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place without removing the ability of a family like mine to go from just above poverty level to the top 10% in 5 years.

I'm sure you know there's a huge gap between top 10% and becoming a billionaire, but if your economic rise required government-structured vehicles like patents and monopolies, it might have knocked a few percentage points off US GDP.

Should We Have Billionaires?

"Patents and related protections raise the price of prescription drugs alone by close to $400 billion a year over the free market price, or 1.8 percent of GDP. If we add in the impact of patents and copyrights on medical equipment, software, movies, fertilizers and pesticides, and other areas, the cost could easily exceed $1 trillion annually or close to 5.0 percent of GDP."

What is your issue with patents? Why should the people that put in the work to make the new discovery/product not be allowed to reap the rewards from it?

I'm a bit player in an international patent war Gator, over the last decade i learned just how much corporate 'influence' exists in the process.

I won't bore you with details, save for this....IF you owned a bizillion $$$ industry, what would you do to protect it???

~S~

 

[georgephillip]

Billionaires come from eating poor people.

Or perhaps they come from government-structured tax rates?

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"In a typical sample of 1,000 respondents, only about 10 are in the top 1%.

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue. In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

 

[bripat9643]

Do the richest among us owe their wealth to hard work and high IQs or government monopolies like patents and copyrights, minimum wage laws, or campaign finance contributions?

Should We Have Billionaires?

"The basic story is that if we have a market economy, some people can get very rich.

"If we buy the right-wing story, the super-rich got their money from their great contribution to society.

"If we look at it with clearer eyes, the super-rich got their money because we structured the economy in a way that allowed them to get super-rich..."

"This is a point which seems very obvious, but for some reason is largely ignored in policy debates.

"Most typically these debates take the market distribution of income as a given, and then ask the extent to which we might want to redistribute to have less inequality...."

"But it is completely absurd to treat the market distribution of income as given.

"The market is incredibly flexible and it can literally be structured in an infinite number of different ways."

Instead of arguing over a redistribution of income, restructure markets in such a way that vast private fortunes never come into existence in the first place.

Business Insider › more-rich-people-in-china-than-america...
Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Oct 22, 2019 - In 2018, China was home to more members of the global top 10% than ... For the first time ever, there are more ultra-wealthy people in China than the US ... Three factors affect how many millionaires live in any given country: ...


another example of the failures of socialism compared to the successes of capitalism!

Do you "see" how Chinese capitalists are "earning" their billions?

1 million dead and US$38 billion lost: the price of China’s air pollution

Capitalism generates wealth like no economic system ever; however, it allows a few parasites to hoard vast quantities of wealth by externalizing clean-up costs onto society as a whole.

Is that fair or just, or don't you care?

Please show the proof that pollution has killed one million people in China.