I'm American. I'm bankrupt due to health. I have no income because I'm not technically disabled, even though I can't work. How much is enough??? Can I please get my chronic pain taken care of? Please!!! That would be enough, thank you.
Just move to a sane country and pay for affordable excellent PRIVATE care, (like I did) and stop hallucinating that your slave-owners in the land of the fee, home of the slave, are going to do anything for you that a farmer would not do for his cows. You live on the Jones Plantation. You should leave.
Sadly, all you can do is get an attorney who fights for SSDI, which is often only around a thousand per month, and ask the judge to backdate it to the app date so your 2.5 year wait for Medicare will be over be the time your case goes to court. Apply now. In the long term, the politics of medicine is really cracking down on palliative pain care. If you don’t have a family member to with you to test off-label things, you may have to go to a major university hospital to see a palliative doc about installing a tiny opioid dose pain pump into your spinal fluid. If nothing works enough to get you up and moving, you at have to use SSDI back payment to go to Switzerland for physician-assisted suicide since the USA doesn’t even guarantee abortion even for a deformed fetus after six weeks in all states and will never have euthanasia in our lifetime except for patients in the final months of cancer anyhow so it spares them the stage when morphine doesn’t help when the cancer eats them during the last week or so…. America is the worst advanced country to be in if you have chronic pain, even worse than Canada, which is saying something! Good luck getting out of pain and into peace!
Nations with higher reported happiness tend to be the nations that are more equal in income and wealth, and vice versa. I don't know in which direction the causality runs or if there is some different common cause, but this seems worth keeping in mind. Also, countries with more equal wealth distributions tend to have higher overall growth rates, so extreme inequality is sort of a tax on everyone.
Funny thing is people will call this communism but they clearly didn't read Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism who thought the role of government was to keep markets healthy which meant making sure there is enough competition and no monopolies or too much concentration of capital. The guy was very worried too much capital concentration will make rich people control politics
We can do both. Set a tax that targets wealth over a certain amount that acts as an upper limit while improving labor rights and use thoss taxes to fund public services like healthcare or UBI.
@@Gingersnaps_the_pumpkin_kitty What I mean by impossible is that it should not be possible for billions of whatever currency to go to a single person in the first place. There should be no billionaire-creating distribution before the redistribution through taxes. Taxes are useful for creating demand for a currency, influencing buying habits and controlling the amount of money in the economy. It should not be necessary to use them for redistribution or even state financing.
Or yall can just demand ur institutions make them accountable for crimes. No this idea is much better😂 So, who gets to say what's the limit? The next person in power? Then the next? You all are the type to complain about late stage capitalism as well while not bothering to say anything about the destruction and bypassing of monopoly laws completely undermining a capitalist society. No, yall have fought a war of attrition on corruption because we forgot why we were ever fighting. Yall just targeting the only people who will have enough singular power to fight these crime syndicates who are coraling yall for the government without their knowledge. Then, when they take life insurance policies out on the people, yall worth more gone than productive. Our government is a business. Our competence has bn destroyed due to the opiate wars. This government will turn you as a profit one way or another. Even if it means grinding your bones to make their bread in a literal sense. We'll collapse when we don't switch to automated production just because these mafias own greed for drug money, control, and slave crops they all pick put by the American people feeling entitled to do so because they spit on the very God country that gave em the ability. All while the poorest and those crazy enough to fight think the syndicates are watching out for the little man. Y? Because it doesn't matter how someone takes control of the biomaterial, only that they do. This entire thing is the most counter productive option I can think of. How exactly do you plan to take their wealth considering most these people are smart enough to already have their own self sustainability outside of what makes them money? No your right we can l8bby n complain until we fight violently about anothers collective pile of debt bonds. Not even real monitary finances but debt letters. So then all the incredibly rich can use advanced tech, go into nuclear shelters n rid themselves of most the troublesome garbage to replace them with robots. Or maybe we'll get one n then for several hundred years the rest of growing world will remember whst the people did n have no business or wealth brought here. Then you can enjoy sitting n playing in dirt while bombs wreck your families but hey I bet you'll feel good lighting the Rockefeller buildings on fire. Its not like most are old and needing to be replaced anyway. Seems like a good excuse to have taxpayers replace them after burning them. But it's cool ur neighbors will thank you afterward when an 18 mo th food shortage comes n we go back to tying women to trees and cutting their breast's off for food. Ever considered protecting a weaker you love from a stronger group that wants to literally use them for food? Go look up Russian cannibal island then start talking about this. Wanna make things even? Get people things at low cost to yourself or no cost. Help them with food shelter and water. I highly doubt creating a war against the people who have the most power in a system we all have decided to follow is a bad idea.
the fundimental flaw you missed in the first few min is that once people hit a certain amount of wealth, it's not about "enough", the wealth becomes a highscore.
@@mrman991 that’s a great point. Olympians train to set the best record in the respective sport. Same for competitive capitalists. Olympians increase their medal count and capitalists increase their wealth count. Do you think it’s moral and logical to let olympians to do their best to beat records even though some people don’t have 1) the desire to compete 2) the training required 3) born without legs ? My understanding of your comment is that this it’s wrong for capitalist to see their wealth as a highscore, how so? Ps. John D. Rockefeller’s highscore still has not been broken.
If an olympian gets a medal, there are no negative effects on anyone. Thats different with money as this video explains very well. And I don't think its not moral, because the system allows it, so nobody can be blamed to use this opportunity. But thats why it should be illegal
@@lionke4990 if the Olympians wins, their competitors lost. All the time and money invested gone. Money is a little different. Amazon can kill small retail stores. Like the Olympian winning their respective sport. Amazon does not stop people from accumulating wealth in different ways. The best archer is not going to stop the best sprinter from winning
@@keplersiguineau The difference is your athletic performance is not boosted by other people's work whose livelihoods depend on how much you decide to give them back after you win.
"If a monkey hoarded more bananas than it could eat, while most of the other monkeys starved, scientists would study that monkey to figure out what the heck was wrong with it. When humans do it, we put them on the cover of Forbes." - Nathalie Robin Justice
It sounds like a nice quote, but I wouldn't put much stock in it. I don't really believe that to be true. Monkies have hierarchies and killing other monkeys isn't uncommon. I agree with the principle, but it's a really poor analogy.
Yeah that's always been a stupid take, if a monkey actually did that everyone would be marveling at how smart that monkey is who can understand the uncertainty of the future and the importance of ensuring one's own survival. Besides, if you actually believed that was a valid take you wouldn't hoard money or things would you? But you do. If you have a single dollar saved then you've just destroyed any argument your trying to make using that dumb quote.
@@kevinhank17 My guy, you understand it's a survival strategy to take care of eachother, right? Ever hear of a species collaborating? Ever hear of them working together? It's almost like evolution selects for it and it increases your chances of reproduction. Who are you going to reproduce with when everyone else is dead? "If you have a single dollar saved then you've just destroyed any argument" That's the dumbest thing I've read online in a very long time. I honest to god am speechless. Sharing doesn't mean "donate everything you have", you know that. Ah yes, let me share some money with this homeless guy, I'll just give him everything I own and will ever own. Get a grip and think about the words that leave your mouth. Completely shocking.
Depends on who the THEM is....I worked my way into the top 15-10% overall. That seems pretty rich to me. Could have and could still do more...but you know what is REALLY rich? Knowing that at any pt, I can just decide to NOT work....and be perfectly fine for the rest of my life. So its not a scam, its about choices.
And yet you are 100x richer now than the richest person in the 1930's. You got a fancier cellphone, laptop, fancier toilet, heating, variety of food, refrigerator, fancier vacations, etc. Why is that?
I was opposed to a limit but the idea of a max based on the lowest earning would be great. Say a CEO can't make more than 10x the lowest paid employee. Than these people are motivated to increase earnings for those who need it most so that they can increase their own earnings.
How do you want to count that because forcing all employee to take 90% of their pay in stock that they can't sell would do that. Can you live on 10% of your pay?
@aaronjjacques idk man it's just a concept. Perhaps do not allow the stock value to exceed 10× lowest paid employee salary at the time of payment. Even still if a company you own 1% of grows to be a trillion dollar company you would still become a billionaire @@aaronjjacques
@Mikkerd12 or people can choose to get paid the same way as ceo by maxing out their employee match rather then expecting the beurocracy to fix the prolem for them.
@@aaronjjacques an employee match isn't a thing everywhere. I 100% agree people should fix their own finances tho because most people would still be poor if they made 10x what they make now. They would just be living paycheck to paycheck in a sportscar. It is almost always their own fault when "the month is to long"
@Mikkerd12 97.5% of the publically traded company have at least an employee match. It is an easy way for a company to reduce expenses by just writing options (which strike when the vesting period ends). If you are in 2.5% oh the horror, you invest at the same rate as retail instead of the 2:1 ratio.
All invalid points - >Point 1.Says stats are wrong on assumtion. point 2 is Extreme wealth has nothing to do with Extreme poverty. you can not elevate people with handing out money who have poor financial habits.Yes extreme wealth can turn into politics obviously but you dont like it because its not your favorite poplitical party. Lets mention billionaires who affect politics who are democratic. there are many. Point 3: There Always will be Inequality because There is inequality in skills,minds,capabilities that benifit more or less to society. What should we do faults : Why should we limit how much someone can earn ? why is it to the rich only ? isnt that Inequality in in itself. why not you? your wealth can also lift up at least one person or more ? are you willing to give up half of your house so some one can have equal house as you?
@@PabloGonzalez-hv3td in a T-bill at 2.5% you get 25k a year indefinitely. This off course, taking an average interest rate. 25k a year in a state of perpetuity (kind of). You could just support an endeavour. Another job. Is not meant to make you rich. I said it should be enough. If 25k is not enough, then double it. Make it 2 million into T-bills. The point is, it's not unreasonable or unbearable for the economy.
Anyone here defending millionaires but not a millionaire themselves - know that you are getting taxed more on your hard earned income than they are getting taxed just through owning assets and owning money.
Anybody can become a millionaire with hard work, determination, and mostly luck. But the only way to become a Billionaire is by leeching wealth from the poor through means at your disposal. High predatory fees and interest rates, sweat shops in foreign countries, wage theft, "political donations", cost cutting by destroying communities and environments and entire ecosystems... THAT is why billionaires are the problem and not necessarily millionaires
I find it funny that people will defend millionaires and billionaires, but when you talk about raising wages for service workers and suddenly, they say, "They don't deserve that much money."
I don't think we have the authority to say what people deserve. Unless we are talking about morality then we can make judgements about someone's actions based on a standard. When it comes to success and money, life goes well for some, life is hard for others 🤷🏻♂️. It is true that some millionaires didn't start from zero and were given a lot. But somebody had to work for it. One day I'll have children and I wouldn't want someone saying "hey your kid doesn't deserve those 20 bucks because he didn't work for it."
Imo, millionaires in this economy, reasonable. Not saying millions a year, but imagine having one house... In my country you'd soon be close to having a million when you have one, and you need a roof over your head. That being said, minimum wage workers are often worth more for what they deliver than multi millionaires. And most certainly more than billionaires, who always extract too much from the system.
Seeing this from a third world country where rich is becoming richer and poor is becoming poorer . The richest guy in my country has 110 billion dollars but average salary is just 300 dollars per month 😅 . Such a cruel world .
So many temporarily poor billionaires in the comments. No counter arguments just salt, rage and "FrEEdoM" for some reason? Lol calm guys, billionaires won't pay any attention to your bootlicking and no you won't join them no matter how much you sigma grind.
Yep, accurate observation and analysis to many of the comments here defending capitalism and extreme wealth hoarders. That's the other sad thing that capitalist society produces: Brainwashed masses who repeat programmed status-quo defending propaganda, with no real facts or arguments to back it up. They would collapse with any bit of scrutiny or questioning. So it is best to ignore them. They won't be helping. They will be yelling in the basement and hitting their head against the wall. Poor them. Be on the system change side of things with people who believe in it, because it is more invigorating. Check out One Small Town initiative, Zeitgeist Movement, Moneyless Society and World Beyond Capitalism for more.
Here’s a rebuttal. I don’t want a government that pays 90k for a bag of bolts that cost 200 dollars at Home Depot. The government is constantly waisting and pocketing money. You are really advocating for bureaucrats in power over billionaire’s. Both don’t have ur best interest in heart😊
I mean just look at how most companies are organized - they're limited liability. So the owners can't lose more than they initially invested, but on the other hand, the gains they can reap are unlimited and scale as a percentage of ownership. That's a literal scam.
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 sure, because it is easy to move and find another country with the size of the US economy. (And the stability that comes with 2 oceans and the world's largest navy.)
@@martins-tl9bu bots, yeah all the billionaire haters 😄we actually know stuff, you know we went to school. As opposed to idiots like you that are still at Mickey Mouse level . Grow up read some books take a degree or two in economics then we can talk
We are going back to feudalism. Our employers own half of our waking hours, a quarter is owned by our landlords and the other to huge supermarket chains. And we are LIVING less and less. And this is truly even in rich and poor countries. It's truly sad.
@@enotbegemot1240 A lot of feudal peasants could actually move and were paid to do so, feudal lords would offer benefits to attract migrant peasants but later chip down on those benefits as they settled. Heavily depends on region, time & circumstance.
The problem with money is, that there is a point where you only can get richer, if you exploit human beings, animals and the evironment. This point is where we should set the line.
If you have that much money that you can do virtually anything, you should first contribute to solving the worlds problems etc. then you can get richer as you of course still earn your own money
Nope. Disagree. Taylor swift is not exploiting anyone and she is a billionaire. May high end athletes only explot their own bodies, such as football, and make millions or hundred of millions. Again, not oppressing anyone just make the most of their hard work. Three are bad actors sure, but the mere existance of someone who makes a lot of money does NOT make them exploitive....you need more than that to make that claim.
@ not everyone exploits and there are surely people who worked hard for the money but money still needs to be valued and you still need to have morals, it’s laughable how much co2 Taylor emmitted with her jet flights
Why? They are simply great at managing resources, which is why they are rich. They are the best suited to manage that money, obviously. Poor people are poor because they suck at managing resources.
@@calysagora3615 most billionaires attribute their wealth to just getting lucky with a terribly average idea while already having a shit ton of money from their parents. Not to mention maintaining that wealth is simply just fucking everyone over who gets in your way. no billionaire is particularly good at their jobs compared to the average person. take elon musk, bill gates, bernard arnault, all of which came from immense wealth and got lucky with their surroundings. by your logic, a guy who manages inventory at a store should be richer than all of the names just listed but that simply just is not the case. quit bootlicking the 1% that couldn't give less of a fuck about you
@@calysagora3615 if you have me barely enough resources to survive for longer period you easily aquire master skills at managing resources. "[extreme wealthy individuals] are the best suited to manage that money, obviously." - that is bs. Learn how wealthy aquire theit wealth - it is not by skill
They are in a great position to do something about it, especially now. Let's get them to put some of their more suitable ideas actually into action. Also, make it illegal soon to have so much money generation, divert these funds to suitable, well-thought out activities that benefit society and the world. Lastly, just because they have extreme money, does NOT mean they are a better person on average than anyone poorer. The higher the rewards in business, the higher the competition, and this tends to lead to some being more tempted to act unethically. This ruthless culture slows progress, and can damage the plant/society. We must therefor carefully change society to cap extreme wealth, and reward those people and institutions that actually benefit humanity and the environment. Stop blindly enabling psycho behaviour and following corporate drone-culture and realise most of us (not the psychos) are more powerful together, and this can start with feeling better!
I'm 60 and my wife 53 we are both retired with over $1 million in net worth and no debt currently living smart and frugal with our money. Saving and investing lifestyle in the church stock market made it possible for us this early even still now we still earning weekly
Wow. I'm a bit perplexed seeing her been mentioned here also Didn't know she has been good to so many people too this is wonderful, I'm in my fifth trade with her and it has been
I don’t understand why people think that voting conservative would make them richer! They don’t understand that even if they‘re „kind of wealthy“ they still have more in common with to the poor that the rich
I remember seeing a video on a rescued puppy being petted for the first time; at first it was screaming in panic because it had never felt a loving touch before, only abuse, but as soon as it realized what was actually going on, it loved it. I was reminded of this because it's probably how most americans would react to nordic model social democracy.
@@rutessian "Just because something works in some countries for a while, doesn't mean it'll work everywhere forever." Funny, that's the exact _opposite_ of the argument the US uses to justify spreading its ideology abroad. "Democracy works in the US so let's spread it to the Middle East." "Capitalism is the only way forward because it works so wonderfully here."
Most of the problem is "unaffordable housing". This drives the need for income to pay mortgages or rent. This traps people in a lifetime of debt hence the desire for one million to pay for a home and some cash left over to live on.
@@TheMarketExit Getting rid of the state's regulations on zoning laws??? Btw, homeownership today is as high as in the 1960s. It has really not changed that much. The overall standard of living is also up. Consumption based poverty has decreased from ~30% in the 1980s to ~6% today, and people work far less for far more access to goods and services than ever. Your entire video entirely ignores the actual problems here, and that is statist interventionism in the economy, not muh billionaires. Billionaires are entirely irrelevant; if anything, they are just a result of the FEDs power expansion during the Nixon years with the abolishment of the gold standard. Of course, when you abolish the only thing that keeps the USD valuable and grant the FED full power to increase the money supply, that's what will happen. They expended the money supply by purchasing securities from large banks, those banks used the money for lending, and those with high credit scores (large corporations and billionaires) borrowed the money. Effectively redistributing the purchasing power from the majority to the minority of super wealthy individuals. Make a cap on wealth, and then what??? Where is that supposed to go? Are companies just not allowed to grow anymore? Are you forced to sell your assets, and the money is taken away from you by an inefficient state that will waste it more than anybody could possibly do? That's an insane idea. There's nothing evil or wrong about having a large portion of wealth (i.e owning shares of companies) - it's precisely what contributes to economic growth. Yes, it becomes a problem when the state uses its power to manipulate the market in favor of some, but that's certainly not the markets' fault. At this point, you better lobby the government because otherwise you will be the target of it. We already saw what happens to those billionaires that didn't lobby the government. They get destroyed by it. Many such cases.
Build more houses then. Let supply meet demand. Problem solved. You limit supply politically, via permits and whatnot, you get artificially low supply. Do you seriously think land owners would not want to take advantage of high prices, i.e. high ROE?
Zoning laws are not the issue. Yhat is just kicking the can down the road. The issue is that housing, wether single family home or appartment buildings should be a place to live. Not an in investment for companies. @@YangChuan2001
The comment section is "the American dream" in action. People would rather be controlled and exploited by the super rich than accept the fact they will never be part of the 0.003%.
There's something interesting about what you said. The rich simply own it. A few people. What about the majority of people that consume and create the media? Do they get a free pass and only the CEOs are to blame? If someone tells you to kill someone else, are you removed from all responsibility?
This is 1000% why. They make all our livelihoods - particularly those of the politicians and media - dependent on defending their story of wealth so that no-one can openly challenge it, no matter how absurd it becomes.
I’ve been saying for years that “I have no desire to be rich, I just want to live a comfortable life without extreme debt” I feel like I do that, and I only gross about $65 - $70k a year. The only thing I’m in debt for is my house. In fact medical emergency would be the only thing that could sink me at this point. I really don’t understand the kind of greed that thinks they need all of the world’s money. I mean that literally, it’s not enough to have more money than most entire countries they want all of your money too!! It’s insane to think like this!!
"I really don’t understand the kind of greed that thinks they need all of the world’s money. I mean that literally, it’s not enough to have more money than most entire countries they want all of your money too!! It’s insane to think like this!!" It would be insane if that's what they did, but they don't. The insane thing is thinking they do. Scrooge Mc Duck is NOT real. Hoarding is NOT how you get rich. Wealthy people DO NOT sit on money or waste it on stupid shit, that's poor people behavior. Leftists really needs to get out of their childish envious toddler attitudes and their cartoonish mythological nonsense about how wealthy people live. You ONLY gross 70K??? FFS, I could live like some filthy rich royalty on that kind of money. Maybe you need to review your living costs.
@@williamdebordjr. I miss being in the mental state you are in. Although I was born in a poor family I took every opportunity I found to do better, and could've written the same message here as you did 2 decades ago, but then I was crazy enough to go all-in with a business and just in the span of 2 years due to change in regulations and one poor business decision I not only lost everything I had at that point (including my house and girlfriend), I'm still paying a loanshark that appropriated the debt from my Bank.
One thing that bothers me about the rich is they take huge amounts of income away from workers. Look at Elon and Tesla for example. Elon's annual compensation has recently been around $45,000,000,000 from Tesla. At the same time ALL Tesla employees combined get $11,000,000,000 and each worker gets no more than $40,000 to $200,000. Why should one man take 4x more of a companies profits than every worker combined. Consider Elon is not alone. Most companies have the CEO and owners getting the gross majority of the profits. Back in the 60's and 70's the CEOs and owners only got about 20x to 100x more than the average worker. Now CEOs and owners often get up to 50,000,000x more than workers. Keep in mind if Elon's wealth was distributed amongst every US worker at his companies, each worker in the US would get well over $1,000,000 (one million dollars each). It is insane for one man to be that wealthy and to take such an enormous percentage of company profits! This reduction of income for the middle class is making it much more difficult for workers to afford what they need compared to the 60's and 70's. My father in 1970 earned $30,000 per year as a young engineer and he bought his current house for $32,000. With only his single income he paid off the house in 5 years while buying 2 new cars for $2500 and $3000, furnishing his house with new everything, traveling around the world on annual vacations, etc. Today, his same house is worth $1,000,000 and a young engineer earns about $60,000. The reduction in value of workers pay is insane. Today a similar car to what my father bought costs $50,000 or almost the entire annual salary. This is not sustainable. If more and more of company profits continue to go to the owners and CEOs, pay will not be enough for any worker to be able to afford to live in a house. What we need are government policies like what were in place in the 1935 to 1970 time where income and capital gains above $3,000,000 to $10,000,000 was taxed at well over 90% and corporate profits were taxed at 55% to 70%. That is the biggest reason inequality dropped between 1930 until 1970. Keep in mind corporate profits are after corporate expenses, like employee pay and corporate R&D are subtracted from corporate revenue. Companies don't suffer from high marginal taxes, only the rich suffer by their income being limited. Note I am not suggesting owners and CEOs not get more than workers, just that government tax policy should limit it to something like 100x more than well paid workers. The current policy of unlimited pay for owners and CEOs is insane.
You have discovered the real problem, you are just wrong about what it is. The actual issue is the inflation in prices far above the average salaries in the US. And the reason for this is because the US is full of materialistic narcissists that don't care about how much something costs, they just have to have 'X' product to be socially validated. So companies can charge pretty much whatever they want for shitty products because they know the average US consumer will buy it anyway. Years ago, RCA TV's were renowned for their durability. Personally I had one that survived a house fire and falling on my head while still working just fine. Now you go buy a TV and breath on it wrong and it breaks. And there is a name for this. It's called 'planned obsolescence'. And the only people to blame is the US consumer. We have brought this hellscape upon ourselves with our insatiable appetite for substandard, shiny products that are no where near worth what we pay for them
We actually need a new form of society. The humanity already have the ability and technology to feed everyone on earth for decades, the only reason that actually don't happens is because is not lucrative for companies. I live in Brazil, I decided not to be a scientist because there is no investment for that (I could end up homeless if I did it here). The biggest companies are agricultural and they put pressure on the government to keep the country deindustrialized, they don't want to lose their monopoly.
@@vitoremanuel4292 Brazilian here as well and yeah, the economic model of the country is basically run by the interests of big agriculture companies and there's nothing we can do. They made many previous governments subsidies that went to industry and research in other areas so agriculture would mantain the hegemony in the country.
@staceyhamilton3982 You are essentially saying the same thing as me. Yes, I fully agree that salaries have not kept up with prices. One interesting statistic is that if you look at total or average compensation for everyone, including the top 1%, it has perfectly kept up with how prices and the costs of living have increased. Think about how that is possible. How can average or total compensation have kept up with the costs of living, yet typical middle and low income earners now have approximately 1/10th the buying power they did in 1970? The reason for this discrepancy is that top earner compensation has increased by 10,000 to 100,000 times what they earned back then, yet regular worker income has only roughly doubled. Since on a dollar basis costs of living have gone up by about 20x what they were in 1970, it is now roughly 10x harder for workers to afford things like a home, a vehicle, etc. At the same time, if you are in the top 1% of earners, your buying power has increased by as much as 5,000x. In general, companies selling products & services make a significant, but limited operating income excluding labor. How that income is split up between workers, the executive and stock holders matters. There is only so much available money, so if the rich get 90% of it, there is much less available to go to the workers. The majority of people think it doesn't matter how much more billionaires take year after year, but it really does matter. If everyone understood this, they would start to understand why it is so important for governments to set target levels of inequality and to instil policies that control this inequality. Pure, unregulated capitalism behaves like it does in the game of monopoly. Over time, there will be winners who own everything and everyone else, the workers, become the loosers.
Many people, myself included previously, believe that pure capitalism will self regulate and provide prosperity for everyone willing to work hard. Unfortunately, in reality, free, unregulated capitalism only works well for somewhere around 30 years following some sort of "reset" (like a great depression, or societal monetary collapse, or start of a new country). After that, inequality becomes an ever increasing problem. In my work, we've run many simulations, looking at free capitalism and how it works. The reality is it doesn't work long term...
It’s really insane. The boot licking is beyond anything. No one should be able to amass that much wealth. That wealth is immoral and never made ethically. The influence that it causes is also immoral. Wealth does not equal speech.
@@enotbegemot1240 Meritocratie is a lie, most people in the top 1000 of the richest people on earth were born in very rich family, you should not deserve more because of your birth. Another exemple is that the majority of people that actually matters to the world like nobel prizes, top scientists, physicists, mathematician etc... are far from rich. The richest people on earth are shareowners who barely work, they do not create anything, they pay competent people to create things for them and at really low wages compared to how much their work benefit the company . The worst is that people like you are mostly poor, nepo babies do not waste their time making comments on the web, and yet you defend the rich as if you were actually benefiting from them being rich which is insane. Sometime I actually wonder how the average person view the world, it's like they are unable to form coherent thoughts so they end up unable to defend their own interests.
@tolmir2929 Actually, children are entitled to their parents' money. Why don't they deserve it? Because it is not in your interests? Each generation is trying to pass the results of their work to the next one. And it is okay. You are trying to sell your interests as some justice or fairness. It is not okay.
To preface, I agree with your message, but extreme wealth does not threaten capitalism, it is the direct result of Capitalism. Under ideal capitalistic conditions absolute consolidation of power is the natural endpoint, so capitalism has currently achieved exactly what it's principles are
The worst thing about capitalism is that both of these are true. Extreme wealth is the direct result of capitalism, and also a major threat to it. iirc this is something Marx talks about in Capital
You're right. There has to be made the difference between capitalism and free market economy. While this one also does not work without problems, it could be a workable and somewhat fair economic system, if it was based on ideal circumstances where everyone starts with the same/a comparable amount of ressources and opportunities. And this is the thing that monopolys/billionairs are destroying: free markets. Sadly most people don't know the difference between capitalism and market economy.
If markets were truly free, it would be nearly impossible to become a billionaire. We can get closer to a free market, reduce prices of things like medicine by doing two unpopular things; one, patent reform by either limiting patents to five years, ending method patents altogether or give 5% royalty payments to all patent holders giving access for all. two, eliminate or reduce or eliminate licensure laws for the professions like the medical profession. Two simple reforms that nobody in the USA at least, wants to do but will work.
My issue is that money can buy power and influence at levels that lead to horrific inequality. Billionaires can fund campaigns, donate to organizations that favor their interests over the interests of the masses and allows them to buy levers of influence like social media companies where they can control the narrative. It’s not money that is the core issue it’s the ability to convert that wealth into power and influence that buys them the ability to push through laws that overwhelmingly are aligned with their interests over the interests of society. That is a serious issue.
I agree 100%, especially since they get wealthier on the backs of all those without a lot of money & conspire to make like as hard as they can for the rest of us instead of trying to make things better.
It is literally impossible to become a billionaire without exploiting thousands of people. Anyone who is in favour of billionaires, is in favour of explotation. Not accepting of exploitation, in favour of it.
@@haroldgarcia9267What systems has humanity tried? We've tried the absolute authority of a single man. We've tried the absolute authority of money. What else have we tried?
@LordWaterBottle wow, the ignorance is enormous in you. Fix that or shut up, no one cares about your worthless opinion. Educate yourself and make your opinion worthy of listening too. Like seriously, you think in the hundreds of thousands of years of humanity we've only tried 2 incredibly simple systems of governance? You can't be that dumb.
Tjrs why the limit on the US is 5. Because in Europe we have universal healthcare so 1 million is enough. I’m I Europe . And I have even calculated that 2,4 million is enough form birth till your 100th anniversary is enough (if you had 2000€ per month every year). Or 960k for a work life of 40 years until retirement. Which would correspond to people answering that 1 million is enough as they are no longer kids.
You sound like a child with a comment like that, try getting out of your parents basement and GO to a third world country before showcasing your ignorance.
Unfortunately, by the time the vast majority of people realise that the only way to fix this is by dragging them from their over-priced, over-sized houses, it will be far too late, as there will already be private security forces to prevent precisely this sort of thing from happening.
A worrying amount of people here defending billionaires and I'm not sure if they truly understand how much a billion is and how that amount can be gained or even the purpose of tax.
There are millionaires that have a smaller income than some people in poverty. This is the issue with that idea I believe. Bills make us poor; if we owned all our cars, homes and had no kids in the house... I'd only need around 25k a year to eat, pay insurance, property taxes and phone bills. I think the most unfair disadvantage against middle and lower class, is the lack of rightful financial education that's been neglected in public schools. Why is it that grown adults find out about investing through a job, and the best option they think they have is a, try not to laugh, traditional 401k 🙄
@@poopoo1533billionaires get their money because they created companies. And they own a big part of the company. All their wealth comes from the money that the company is worth and they might not get that big of a salary.
Creating a maximum wage and redistribution of anything over it does not lift people out of poverty, it will drop more people into poverty. You have no knowledge of economics.
Ok ... But who will stay with the money from the millionaires? The government? And even if the poor and other people stay with the money, won't that make people stop working?
Billionaires are sink holes. Imagine if 99% of what they’re hoarding got released back into the economy. The world would be better off and they’d still be rich.
They are not hoarding cash, for example they could have lots of factories that create jobs. Why would the world become a better place by making billionaires liquidate all their assets and give their money away?
@@tomgon3D they are “hoarding” capital keep it allocated to production rather than released to compete with your dollars at the grocery store. The left doesn’t understand the concept of inflation.
I have a shit paid job, drive a 20 year old car, and have to look for discounts and count when I buy groceries because my budget is tight. On the other hand, I have a house worth close to a million Euro that I inherited. When my parents bought it, it was really cheap. If I sell the house, I will have to pay a similar price to get another one. If I move out, I am too far from the job, waste hours, and money on transportation. Am I a millionaire? Doesn't feel like it... Being reasonably wealthy is being able to live comfortably and buy the stuff that you need without counting your pennies. Being excessively wealthy is when you can affect your politics beyond what a regular citizen can. Now, you are not a citizen anymore. You have entered the nobility in a feudal system. You can buy politicians, fund "think tanks" and groom young student lawyers until one or two reach high positions as judges and are indebted to you.
I get what you're saying, but coming from someone who inherited literally nothing, your situation sounds extremely privileged. More than a third of my salary goes towards rent, and I'm forced to commute 2.5-3 hours/day because I can't afford anything more than a tiny studio apartment closer to my job. It is almost impossible for me to build up savings in this situation, so that owning a home is not currently feasible even thinking in the long-term. And for the record, I have a PhD and am above the median salary for my country. I would have so much extra time and money in your situation, and could even sell the house and move somewhere that the market isn't so shitty, invest, etc.
Thank you. You can't measure wealth in 'millions 'of dollars/euro/etc. It's how comfortable and free your life is, do you have a roof over your head and no worries about loosing it, can you travel, can you afford quality food and clothing, can you afford to have a family? Basically, when you have no survival fears.
This is a preemptive response to those viewers appalled by this video’s blatant attack on capitalism. So you believe billionaires don’t get rich by exploiting others? You believe there haven’t been antitrust, anticompetitive and anti monopoly lawsuits against Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft, etc when they abused their power and the system to increase their wealth? You believe employees and smaller businesses aren’t impacted by these practices? You believe being anti union is better for blue collar workers? You believe that the current wage disparity ratio of 500:1 compared to 30:1 forty years ago isn’t a significant factor in a weakened middle class? You believe not increasing the federal minimum wage of $7.25 since 2009 is because government holds too much power? Any responses by non millionaires will be interpreted as trickle down believers, class traitors and economic enablers.
Until everyone can meet all of their basic needs for food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, and mental health care, then no one should be a billionaire. No one becomes that wealthy without the work of other human beings, which is why I believe that the most fair way to prevent extreme wealth hoarding is to require that workers are paid fairly. Fair pay isn't just what you can get away with, fair pay is what value that individual is actually creating for you by their work. If you make $10 million, then some percentage of that profit belongs to the person who mopped the floors. They did an essential job that made it possible for your financial windfall to happen.
You are too ideal. What’s considered fair? Can you systematically distribute pay based on fair contribution when people’s definition of fair is not the same, esp variance in different industry/culture, etc. Clearly, what you are describing exist in an utopian state
"Until everyone can meet all of their basic needs for food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, and mental health care, then no one should be a billionaire." So in essence, you want successful people to be robbed to help useless people? You essentially want full on communism. (the fallacy of positive rights) This is what you call "fair"? That's the insanity of wanting equity instead of equality. This bad idea has backfired every single time it has been tried thought out history. it makes EVERYONE poorer, especially the poorest. "No one becomes that wealthy without the work of other human beings" So what? Those other human beings choose to collaborate with them because they pay the best, making them richer than they would otherwise be, just the same. Is that bad? Are you OK? "...which is why I believe that the most fair way to prevent extreme wealth hoarding is to require that workers are paid fairly." Workers are not helpless voiceless little babies. They are adult human beings, perfectly capable of negotiating terms if they seek employment. But you want to use the FORCE and THEFT of government to bring about your utopia eh? Again, this is pure communist garbage thinking and economic illiteracy. not to mention immoral, unethical and absolutely evil.
This is a totally fair point, the only catch: the one mopping the floor must get not just a share of the profit, but also a share of the risk, liability, consequences of failure, and countless other bitter things, business founders have to deal with. In fact, there are a lot of jobs like this, called equity, revenue share, or co-ownership. The problem is, that the people in general are unwilling to share those things, they only want to to reap benefits.
Unfortunately one of the reasons we have billionaires is because of all the bootlick.. i mean temporarily embarrassed millionaires trying to get crumbs thrown their way.
People are dying because they can’t afford healthcare or even food. Many are forced to work two jobs just to survive, while others have so much money they’re launching rockets or themselves into space. The money used for these luxuries could easily fund universal healthcare and fair wages. The world we live in is becoming increasingly unequal, and the extreme concentration of global wealth in the hands of a few will lead us to disaster, as it has done for many civilizations before us. In the past, the wealthy paid taxes as high as 95-99%, especially in the 1960s and 70s. Despite these high taxes, they remained incredibly rich. However, through lobbying, they managed to convince politicians to give them tax breaks, under the false promise that this wealth would benefit ordinary citizens. What we are witnessing now is the opposite: social achievements are being reduced or dismantled because we are told we "can’t afford" them-while the rich keep getting richer. This system pushes the working class into deeper insecurity. Fear of losing their jobs and being unable to support their families keeps people silent and compliant, instead of standing up against this injustice. But this situation only lasts until people rebel, often with severe overreactions that can set the world ablaze. There is only one way to prevent this: the rich must pay higher taxes again, and their wealth must be capped at a reasonable level. The tax revenue should be used to ensure all citizens can live safe and healthy lives. Until then, I’ll keep my pitchfork sharp and ready.
@@MrTwixraider someone’s regurgitation Reich here. Got any ideas of your own? The billionaires left, maybe go visit Monaco and have words with them if you are upset about it.
I used to not care about economics, because I was happy not pursuing money. But then the little money i had was worth a lot less due to massive inflation. The cause of this inflation? Wealth inequality. Now I care.
No, the cause of that inflation is mostly because of irresponsible governments. 2008? Banks should have been allowed to fall. It would have sucked hard in the short term, but would have put some brakes on the untenable economy and wouldn't have let incompetent banks just keep operating as they always had. 2020? Quarantine on a global scale was pure insanity and created more inequality than the great depression. The true problems stared when we move to fiat currency and government could just print money with nothing to back it up, and they they started doing that to manage their ever growing debt that they accrued through irresponsible spending.
Hard truth is that most people who defend millonaire and billonaires existence is because they hope to become one some day, and they rather have that societal chance to do so, even though most of them will never be, than to live a more balanced life but being limited to reach that level of wealth, power and opulence.
I think they defend them because of the percieved glorification and justification of their position, and how much influence they have over their opinions already. But in the case of millionaires, the current policy gives them an easier chance at becoming a billionaire.
I wander if bilionares also own media outlits and create products that put these ideas in peoples minds ever since they were yound and thru out their whole life... Nah surely its natrual and not an outcome that those in power wanted to create... RIGHTTTT?????
It's ok to have rich people, but ultra rich is just disgusting. If we could be fine with just rich, poverty wouldn't be such an issue. Money is limited, if its sitting somewhere just so a guy can feel superior, it's not on the hands of middle and lower class.
I do not understand why this channel was not in my YT suggestions: I watch similar content... Nevertheless, better late than never! Amazingly done sir, I instantly subscribed!
It’s true that I am closer to being homeless than to being a billionaire, but I also haven't created anything or made investments that would increase my wealth, so I don't expect to become rich when I haven’t done anything to make myself rich. Just because I am closer to being homeless than to being a billionaire doesn’t mean I should lose sight of what is fair. If someone does something that makes them deserving of being a billionaire, then they should be. Are you going to say that if a person invents the cure for cancer, they deserve to remain in the middle class because of limits on how much they can earn? I would consider that person deserving of becoming a billionaire.
@@nebuloso6527 I see your point but your also not correct because no person will ever cure cancer - it would be a team or more realistically multiple perhaps hundreds of teams combining their effort and standing on the back of all the research that has taken place before them to have that breakthrough. Which is the same for basically everything, the person who makes money off it or claims the fame is usually the one who marketed it not the inventor/inventors... with a few exceptions. Im not saying there isn't value in that by any means its often great to make something available to the masses, but there is very little that's a solo effort , and typically the person who invented a thing of value gets nothing. They either have to hand it to the company they work for or it goes unused until their patents run out and others can exploit it without paying them,.
@PatrickButterly I got to disagree. There have been a few examples of people who claimed to have cured cancer. One example is of a Veterinarian who figured out a cure fir cancer in Dogs. A pharmaceutical company acctuly was going to buy the cure. The Veterinarian committed suicide and his documents disappeared. So hey so it possible for someone to figure out a cure for cancer.
@@matthewvandyk7773 and you are in your rights to disagree.... Do you have any reference to this or is it like a urban legend? I highly doubt the accuracy of it as cancer is not a single thing you can cure... There are many cancers and what cures one wouldn't cure others. Insane random possibilities can happen I won't deny that. Breakthroughs have come at times from unexpected places but it's usually the exception and not the rule. When it dose happen it's usually the result of someone who has that knowledge to back them noticing an unusual effect that isn't in line with the expectations... Or occasionally a totally random chance like when they discovered rat poison tasted sweet
@@simonbomgaars7867 Musk is a really good start. And if you are right winger, then Soros would be your go-to guy. Anyone with the money and will to spend so much enforcing their own world-view on others who don't want it is unethical.
No, I don't think a million dollars are too much to ask. It would literally buy me a house, the furniture and new appliances, maybe even a big garden on property large enough to practice my hobby on and just enough to feed my family with on self grown food. THAT is not too much to ask for. I wouldn't even be quitting work, but instead just scaling down the hours spend there. I would really like to be with my family more. That said. i REALLY like the idea of an upper limit. 10 Mill seems large enough to do just about anything with and wouldn't be a threat to human continuation.
as a swedish person, this video is very swedish. I cannot tell if that is a positive or negative thing, since i've only ever lived in sweden, but i agree with the message. Good vid
I am soon to be 40 years old. Despite having worked 80+ a week hours most of my life, I live in an apartment with roommates and have 150 square feet of personal space. I dont really own anything and am just paying for food and rent. I buy bottled water kuz there is constant problems with the water (I live in a major city, Montreal, Canada). I don't go out. Somehow, according to bill gates, I am richer than a medieval peasant, who has a house, a wife and kids??
At least you have healthcare. In America you can do the same and have no healthcare or if you do a huge deductible that no one in your position can afford. Along with this fighting medical bills to be sure the right code is put in so that it counts toward your deductible. On top of that you need to make sure the doctor is in your network or it doesn't count. And if you don't have a doctor in your area in your network well too bad. What you described I call slavery to people I know. They say "well he can choose to move somewhere else, he can choose a better job, he can educated himself". Then I reply.... "A choice of things from people that hold all the power isn't a choice. It is a choice of what they CHOOSE to give you to give the illusion of freedom while keeping you a slave". Noam Chomsky said a similar phrase. "We have choices of things they let us choose from, but not real choices." I don't care for cars. I would rather have public transportation. I don't have that choice. Even from the cars I get to choose from things are in the car I don't want. I don't need seat warmers, or some fancy 360 camera, or some fancy audio system. Then on top of this the thing I do want which is simple software is $1000. Like I remember the last car we bought new. To upgrade to a media system that accepted bluetooth was over $1000..... just for bluetooth because... I had to take the premium speakers with it. "I don't want the speakers, I just want bluetooth".... "sorry sir they come together". Yea you are in a crappy spot but IMO Canada is better than here for safety nets. If you lose your job here you can still keep your employer insurance..... but you pay for it. Unemployment is like $1200 a month..... which barely covers the insurance and definitely doesn't cover rent. If you are disabled you have to get a lawyer to prove you are disabled because they cut the staff at social security in half.
@@lighttheworldonfire3364 You speak of things you know nothing about. Canada has a TERRIBLE health care system. No doctors, months if not years of wait time. Going to the emergency? bleeding out? you can wait 14+ hours at the ER!! Did a blood test last year. Had to go to a private clinic since all the public places were booked. Kept checking online for several months just to see. There are so few public places and never any room. But *WAIT* a minute... why am I paying the HIGHET TAXES IN NORTH AMERICA (I live in Quebec).... and then STILL pay for my healthcare at public clinics? This is the dirty secret. Canada's hidden shame. Best healthcare in north America? Nope, its the place we pay twice. Once in taxes and then the service is not there and must go public. Threw my back out last year. Couldn't work for 6 months. Never saw any money from this "disability" you speak of. Social safety net? I went on unemployment couple years back. It lasts like 3-4 months and is like 50% of your salary or something. It's really not much... And that's if you can get on it. They use every dirty trick in the book to try to exclude you. You have to go many times to the unemployment office and just through many hoops. I worked a seasonal job, you'd think they would just give you unemployment since it's seasonal. Nope. You need to be looking for a job and fill many other criteria just to get the measely amounts. Canada is a scam. It has a good image but trust me, USA is better. There are no jobs here, high taxes and HORRIBLE public services. Why are we paying for this? SO the rulers can line their pockets as they advertise to the world the safety net, healthcare and wonderful utopia here... why? to lure in immigrants. Canada is flooding in modern slaves. I would know, Im one of them. I want to go back to my country and get out of this hell hole, this trap. I also thought how good it sounded, but trust me, it's not what you think. Its all lies. Living here is expensive and there is no safety net. Its a nightmare. They just want cheap labor. I mean, think about it. This country has created "MAID". Medical Assistance for Dying. aka euthanasia. Why? to kill off the sick, the old, the poor, the disabled. I hear stories ppl applying for this to escape poverty. There is your "safety net" right there. You really want to live in a country like this? The roads, the infrastructure. its HORRIBLE and falling apart. Potholes, sinkholes everywhere. Google the massive water main that broke this year in Montreal. Look at the flooding and damages. Where are our taxes going? Property taxes, income taxes, school taxes, permits, etc... So many taxes and unfathamable amounts!! The schools are run down, the buildings are run down. I swear, Canada is a third worl country. But no one talks about any of this (you can find some hints online of you really search) This is the reality here.
I had similar problem. It was better as I have had just one job and lived in a room until 40. But I have decided to make a radical change thanks to my 'skills'. I could work remotely. Moved out of the expensive area and moved in a 'deprived' area. Had enough savings to buy a house. Now I'm repairing the house, have three rooms and enough to pay a mortgage. This isn't a joke comment. All I'm saying is - F the beautiful city, move out and find a job(if needed) outside of the area, in much smaller and cheaper place. Your mental health will improve. Good luck mate, fingers crossed for you and everyone else that need to take this path.
There is a very important factor ignored in this video (and by many people). The amount of money is only part of the equation, less than 50% even. The other part is what time it took you to gather said amount. Right now, on average, people waste 2/3 of their lives working. THIS is unacceptable. We have enough capabilities in the world now to drastically lower this.
Maybe the problem lies not with the "2/3" part but with the "waste" part? Being stuck on the job that you hate or that no longer can sustain you and your family due to some changes outside of your control - that is unacceptable. The time and effort spent on the job that exists only as some rich man's whim is definitely wasted. But a productive work for the benefit of many can never be wasted. It's normal (and sometimes even beneficial) for people to work as long as they wish and can, but today we don't have robust systems for people to keep their health on the job (some of us are simply unable to work after certain number of years spent in hazardous or unhealthy work environment) and keep their dignity not being thrown away or deemed useless after a certain age. Unfortunately, these systems - the systems of meaningful, fruitful and respectable labour - are impossible under capitalism.
@@AlexKoskin Any work that only benefits other people is a waste. Ideally you want the work to benefit you AND others, but if that's not the case it should benefit you. But a lot of works today benefit no one. Maybe your employer.
@@oredaze From Cleaning toilets to building Space ships to being an Accountant benefits Society. What work only benefits the Employer? The only reason the Employer has a business is because someone out there needs the Expertise to be done by someone else. Your Employer has merely created a System by which other people can find that help and exchange their money for that help. Anyone can be an Employer for anything.
@@TheAsianRepublican The amount of work that is useful to society (in any meaningful way) far dwarfs the amount of jobs and the time each day people spend on the jobs. For example most people spend hours doing nothing on the job.
I’ve seen people say “the country is a business” and I fundamentally disagree with that. Treating a country like a business is not ideal. We should treat it like a household, is it profitable to buy a child a toy? No, it’s just a nice thing to do it just makes life better for the child. If the child is taking advantage of systems in place, punish the child. If the house was worried about profits they’d likely send the child to the mines, take 99% of the child’s pay, spend it on McDonald’s, make it mandatory to always work never have a day off, not allow the child anything to reduce costs to maximize profit. A country must balance the means and the ends, a country should give bandages to the kids who fall, candy to the kids who do great in school, but not require them to study 23 hours a day. A business’s goal is to reduce costs and maximize profit, nothing else, so the ideal for a country of it where a business would be to pass laws that force people to act with those goals. What keeps this in check from becoming extreme is morals (no duh) and laws that represent those morals (also no duh) so if we have those laws then the country isn’t a business but a household. Every action doesn’t need to be for monetary gain, but that also shouldn’t stop the household from having a budget.
@@wehonews ok so they should be taxed more? I mean, idk if thats a solution because with businesses, they have tax loopholes. I dont think government needs more money tbh
@@anthonynosike How do you think roads, bridges, etc are made? How do you think social security, medicare and a lot of society is funded? We could have free post-secondary learning and medicare-for-all. The fact is that the rich pay very little (sometimes nothing at all) since most of their wealth is made from capital gains and not from income, which is easier to evade taxes, because the rich lobbied it to be that way.
@@kevin_andrews735 I do think there's problem with the system but I dont think more spending is the answer. America spends way more on alot of stuff compared to europe for example, but they are very much more advanced than us. We first have to better utilize the money we do have and become more efficient.
Fun fact. When Putin became the president of Russia, we had 0-5 billionaires. And he promised to deal with inequality and things like that. Now we have 125 billionaires and the gap between rich and poor is much bigger
It is not possible to illegalize billionaire, but it is possible in a democratic country to limit the ways billionaires exploit people and systems. The problem i fx USA, it is the richest that make the laws.
Billionaire is relative too. You can make people poorer and 100M becomes the new 1B. So yah making it illegal to exploit people is real solutions but it won’t happen unless citizens off a few uber rich people. That’s how most fundamental changes occur. We’ve gotten soft as a people.
lmao how are people in the comments saying billionaires aren’t in-fact rich or aren’t hoarding money, since they store all of their wealth in stocks and assets? first of all, liquidating stocks or assets is not a problem for them if they really wanted to have the cash on hand. secondly, do you not understand that both stocks and assets also generate revenue in the form of tenants/asset appreciation and dividends/stock growth? revenue that is most likely used to buy even more stocks and assets to generate even more revenue and further increase the wealth gap.. please do some critical thinking and stop licking the boot
How are Rich hoarding money? Hoarding money is keeping it locked up. The examples you give are the wealthy investing in corporations which create opportunities for people to work. They drive the stock market which increase the average persons wealth thru their 401k. They own homes, apartments so people have places to live who don’t want to own property or don’t have enough at a certain stage in their lives to buy. You are misguided.
I'm a free-market capitalist, I'm not poor and I will defend billionaires. I'm quite proud that someone find knowledge entertaining, that's actually a good sign.
@@bardbar I mean, there is a problem with lobbying and making politics or being beyond the law But if we take all the beautiful animations out and shorten this video All he says is billionairs have so huge money, and we should do something about it Its Just a video to please the audience that already believes this idea of maximum amount of money to be good There are so many problems with that Not discussed
"if you wanted to change the world, would you rather be the president of usa or the ceo of goldman sachs?" I think it's clear where the real power lies. Nice video
This is actually genious on so many levels! With such laws, billionaires would push for higher taxes. Because if I, as a billionaire, need to pay education, healthcare, transport, etc, with the only million I allowed to own, that would be bad for me. I rather pay then through taxes - with everyone else - get them for "free", and keep the $1m for other things! I bet they'd even get creative in ways that would BENEFIT all. Like "hey, omg I am getting close to the illegal limit, maybe instead of pocketing all those gains from my company, I should keep them in the company and spend more on improving facilties". Or maybe "As other rich investors are not as aggressive and short-sighted for ROI now, I can make ambitious, rational long-term plans, even if my company will not be as profitable for some short period of time now, to find a cure for cancer, or make meaningful breakthroughs in fusion reactors".
@enotbegemot1240 billionaires more often than not, doesn't keep on doing something to earn even more money. It is about ego. And if you are no longer allowed to accumulate grotesque amounts of wealth, you'll get creative in the way you manifest and feed your ego. Maybe it is by doing something good for society - or, as you suggest - use family as proxies. But you'd need 1000 family members to accumulate 1 billion dollars, and then you'd need to be able to control, manipulate even, them all to control your money - because if you fight with your son or mom or whoever proxy you have - legally they can tell you to f*** off, because it's their money. And don't get me wrong, it still isn't a perfect solution. The billionaire may keep the money within his companies instead, the real proxies. But again, companies' value will rise with accumulated wealth of said companies too, and so the billionaire may not own too much above the limit, because that would reflect in his stock-ownership.
No, everybody should start off with 50 million when they turn 18. To spend however they want, but with no way to earn any more. If you wasted all of it, you're on your own.
No one would ever need to gamble, if we had a livable wage. Money is like law, keeps honest people at bay while the dishonest shit on everything we know.
@@draconicrain7609 This could also apply to the business world as well. Think about it: if we had a basic needs guarantee, we wouldn't need to bail out corporations to preserve jobs because the people would have what the job would provide them anyway. The only risk here would be the business itself which wouldn't be a huge loss if a person's livelihood is decoupled from that. Sure, a person might have to scale back a bit since they're temporarily out of work but there would be the peace of mind knowing that there's a social safety net and the means to rebuild. Believe it or not, a conservative talking point in providing socialized services such as healthcare and education means that the agencies can pay less since the overall costs of living are lower. That may not be my reasoning since providing education and healthcare for example are simply the right thing to do and have many more benefits down the road such as having an educated population or preventing medical complications. The whole thing is dishonest because "this is how the world works, it's unfair, and there isn't anything you can do about it" is disingenuous.
The reason why a "Livable" wage is not possible is because its subjective. Meaning the definition of Livable is different for everyone. If a 30 yr old Mother of 3 children work at a McDonalds with an 18 yr old doing the same exact job, the $10 per hour for the 18 yr old is a livable wage while not for the 30 yr old. Yet why should the 18 yr old and and 30 yr old be paid differently for their time and labor if they are doing the same exact job.
@@draconicrain7609 this idea of “forcing” a livable wage by government decree is a fairy tale. If you raid the minimum within 2 years the prices of everything go up and the minimum wage worker is right back where they were before. Of course they are being paid “more”…and so the government gets more money in income taxes. So the government is the only one who wins. Also…nobody here in Michigan works for minimum wage anymore unless they are literalky too lazy to switch job. Both of my kids STARTED at $11 an hour. McDonald’s is advertising $15 if you will work the late shift. So the wages rose WITHOUT the need to raise the minimum wages. And they will continue to go up from here. If you say “they need to rise faster though” then your problem is that you want a fairy tale to be true. You want low value work to “magically” be worth more to those who are paying for it. But that’s not how the world works. I pay my lawn guy $50 to cut my lawn. It takes him 20 minutes on thag super-fast riding lawnmower. I am NOT paying my lawn guy $100 to do so. If the government wrote a law saying $100 was the minimum for a yard to be mowed…I would break down and buy a super-fast mower and go back to cutting my lawn myself. A 20 to 30 minute lawn cut is just not worth more than $50. And everything else is the same. There’s a max value to having someone work a drive thru window. Above that…it will not be paid. It’s just not worth that much. This may bother you. But that just means the truth bothers you. But the truth doesn’t care about our feelings. Math doesn’t care.
@@jt1559 they do in Australia. The average retiree retires with $2.5M. How do they do it? Instead of “Social Security” the government requires their employer to deduct 11% of their earning and send it into a safe, low interest index fund. They have no choice. From their first job to their last they are FORCED to invest their money. Even minimum wage workers. Compound interest takes care of the rest. It’s basically impossible NOT to become a multi-millionaire if you invest 10% or more of your income over the course of your life. But the Democrats won’t allow us to switch from the failing “social security” system to the Australian style “private investment accounts” model. Because the don’t WANT people to get rich. They want them to remain poor. Because “the poor” are the voting block that keeps them in power. They want as many poor people as possible so they can have as many voters as possible that they can lie to and say “We’re gonna rob the rich and use the money to give you all these goodies” while they then go off and do whatever their super-rich mega-donors tell them to do once they are voted in.
Shouldn't necessarily be illegal, but I think it would be fair to impose heavy taxes on wealth over a certain limit. So for example you'd pay 5% wealth tax of everything you own over 1 billion dollar. Easy!
Genius has arrived. (Dude never hear of fiscal paradise) Do you know how to solve world's hunger as well, maybe by distributing bread to all hungry people?
The point still stands. Capitalism taken to the extreme undermines itself (just like all unrestrained socio-political systems). Even if it seems impossible now, it will collapse, just like the Roman Empire did - and probably in a painful way.
The sadest thing is that there are people in the comments who support this 1% even if they are not one of em . My only hope is that they are bots or payed individuals and do that as a job
The problem is more complex, as very rich people decide how whole nations will evolve. Power and money go hand in hand, so if you want a more fair world you need to limit both up to a certain extent. No, capitalism has it merits, so don't throw it out of the window but a limit, at least an inheritance limit should be installed. In my personal humble opinion all people should get a tax credit (an amount at 0%) until they have reached a certain standard of living, this to help the poor to increase their wealth. Above that level you are taxed a default rate. Above a billion (might change on inflation) you should be taxed 95%. Inheritance should follow the same rules, but at 100% taxed above one billion.
The limit should be 30% more than the lowest paid employee so if your lowest paid is making $20 an hour then you should be making $26 an everyone else in between. Realistically economically speaking that'll cause prices to be more stable worldwide, and keep prices down.
Most countries tax income. That is strange because most countries think that labour should be promoted. We should skip the taxes on labour, keep a universal VAT, and introduce a wealth tax. If you spend all your money, you contribute by VAT. If you save, you pay a capital tax. A capital tax can be modest up to $100.000, a bit higher to $ 500.000, high above $1.000.000,- If you see capital as a claim on the shared pool of resources we have available, the capitalist way is to demand a return on investment. So we should demand for example 10% return (capital tax) on any capital bigger than $ 1.000.000,-. Expand this to not only people but to companies as well (modified, because other scales will be necessary). That prevents stacking of ownership in strange constructions. (increases transparency) And it can be used to limit the size of companies.
The capital tax needs to be significantly higher than the VAT though. VAT hits people with low income _much_ harder than people with a high income, and you need to correct for that.
@@Wolf-ln1ml My thinking: not everyone is the same, and needs the same. If people need more and are willing to work for it, fine by me. My problem is that people get more than they need (that is when their capital grows). So if that grows, they pay, next to the VAT that everyone is paying, a capital tax, every year. The ultra rich do not become rich from their labour (although they have fine salaries) but from their capital. So they are not taxed upon high salaries and they have advisors who are searching full time for loopholes in tax laws so they have to pay even less. And that will be solved by a capital tax. From my point of view, everyone decides what they need and their labour is not taxed. Work hard, earn a lot. If you are happy with a small car? Good for you, you don't need to work so hard. But if you get more than you need, pay society a return on the resources they made available for you and that you didn't need. And that return is of course payable each year you have those resources. Until you need them and you pay VAT.
@@LarsvanZon Oh, I'm fully behind taxing the hell out of... well, what amounts to hoarders of wealth. And yep, no deductions for investing anything - afterall, that increases their capital, which is exactly what needs to be taxed.
When raising my boys I taught them that we had enough; not rich, nor poor. But we were doing fine. What is my metric? Our needs (Maslow's hierarchy, and all that) were generally satisfied and I never had to consult the bank account if I wanted a small splurge on a meal, a new tool for the workshop, or a gift for someone special. That is rich enough for me.
I pity your children for growing up realizing their own father valued the well being of strangers more than the well being of his family. You are a failure as a father.
@johnnynick9115 you missed the point completely. I valued my time with them more than time spent earning more money. They will tell you I am an excellent father, thank you very much.
@@johnnynick9115imagine running just behind money, not spending time with your family and loved ones. And what's the problem if he thinks for his community? Homo sapiens as species is going through a growth crisis is because we have forgotten pur history, have believed that we need more to sustain. More what? As the capitalist propaganda serves, it's always more things, money, and never care for the other. Shame on you for shaming a man who taught his kids values of a human being, and humanity. You PoS, may you serve in the shackles of capitalism.
@@ailo4x4You are commenting on a video advocating for the confiscation of the property of wealthy people. Your comment was an endorsement of that ideology. You find it acceptable to confiscate the property of others once their level of wealth exceeds what YOU deem sufficient. Teaching your children that it is moral to use FORCE to take the property of others is NOT the actions of a good father.
@@johnnynick9115 No, sorry, you really are projecting your pov and missing my point with my sons entirely. I said nothing about confiscating anybodies property. I'm only teaching them that it is more important that they learn that getting more wealth FOR THEMSELVES is not an important goal. It is far more important to be happy with with what you need , work hard to acquire it, and, most importantly, share it with those you love. And that your time is the most important asset you control. But wealth for its own sake is not an important goal. I'm not saying be lazy or happy with being poor. I've done reasonably well with my life and by all standards live an upper middle class life. But I see no need, or personal value, in striving to have more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime. You can't tell me Elon is any happier than I am. Yes, he has his own space program. Good for him. But it won't be standing at his bedside when he is old and comfort him. It won't give back the hours he could have spent with loved ones. And, most important, he can't take it with. He and I will both end up exactly the same, stardust an nothing more.
Let's start with these rich people pay their fair share (a.k.a. just paying your taxes instead of avoid them) of taxes. And yes, I think higher incomes should pay higher taxes.
Its nice to hear countries like Australia are taking elon's rise and influence seriously and starting to look at political donations as a very big problem..
Yeah, societies typically are indoctrinated into the values of the rich, so people look up to to them, aspire to be like them (which is never achievable) and protect them to their own detriment, so society has done a 'good job' in that aspect for some of the commenters. They are like self-hating slaves thinking they deserve their position. Pathetic and sad.
You give me $15m and nobody will ever see or hear from me again. I’ll buy a $200k house, a decent new car, pay off any debt, and anything leftover will be used for basic living expenses and a vacation somewhere I haven’t been once or twice a year. And I’ll probably still die 40 years from now with 10m left. Having billions and still wanting more is an actual brain disease
Even if you wanted a really fancy $2M house and lived a luxurious lifestyle where you spent $10K every month you would "only" spend 8 million over a 50 year period. Heck let's get completely ridiculous, a $10M house, $4M country residence, $6M car collection, $15M yacht, and a lavish lifestyle spending $25K every month. Still "only" 50 million. It will take 125 of the first type of person to spend 1 billion over a 50 year period. It will take 20 of the second type of person to spend 1 billion over a 50 year period, and that's living a more expensive lifestyle than anyone should ever reasonably want. 1 billion is a completely ridiculous amount of money to want, let alone 100 billion. I know that these billions aren't as simple as all being money that can be spent, but still.
Some millionair or other explained that at some point it just becomes a game, it's not about money at some point. Personally I think playing games that result in thousands starving to death every day is disgusting. Sadly too few people think like this or want to change things badly enough. Obscene wealth does have a stigma as far as I'm concerned though, I wouldn't talk to a billionair even if being coerced to do so.
I strongly agree. A billion dollars is an absurd amount of money. No one should have anywhere near that much. Especially not when the people who have that much pretty much always weaponize it against the people who produced that wealth.
We need to stop calling it a billion. Call it what it is ONE THOUSAND MILLION. Most people don't understand that this Swedish guy is worth 20 thousand million dollars. Muskrat is worth TWO Hundred thousand million dollars. Most people are numerically illiterate and think a billionaire is just slightly more wealthy than a millionaire
@@seanposkea Yes. At one number per second, 24 hours a day: Counting to a million takes 11 days, 13 hours, 46 minutes, and 40 seconds. Counting to a billion takes 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes and 40 seconds. Basically, the difference between a million and a billion is the difference between 11 days and 32 years.
I think the vast majority of people arguing against this concept and defending billionaires are stricken with the fantasy of becoming rich themselves someday. The number one propaganda tactic of the elite; the idea that you too could become one of them. I ask them: would you really rather have more than everyone else than live in a world where everyone has enough?
People have been pulled out of poverty "...thanks to capitalism...?" Um...no. Industrialization, yes. But not capitalism. Capitalists have been trying to propagate that narrative for decades. Taking an infographic and attempting to confuse correlation with causation is absurd, not to mention the questionability of the source. The wealthy have worked tirelessly to demonstrate their essentiality. They use their vast resources to manipulate the systems they exist within to serve their interests. I remember how they would make Adam Smith sound like the father and supporter of Capitalism, deregulation, and free markets...until I actually read him. They depend on the ignorance of the masses. That's why they work toward destroying the educational system. The less educated are more malleable. Studies show that wealth has a psychological effect on people not unlike other addictions, chemical and habitual. It's time we treated it as the disease it is rather than praising, encouraging and promoting it the way we do. What can we do? Organize. Read Jane McAlevey. I think bottom-up unions will be essential to pulling us out from under wealth's thumb. But it needs to be done carefully. We've been taught to seek a savior. The attempt to destroy any reliance on any concepts such as political parties, governments or systems, are there to confuse, nothing more. And governments are nothing more than institutional mechanisms that act as power brokers for those who wield the resources to manipulate it. The only way to outdo the wealthy is to pool ours. The masses are the source of the wealth. Pooled, they would overwhelm any available to labor. And wealth knows this. Which is why they've amassed great industries around sewing disunity among them. Union busting is an industry unto itself. But that wasn't enough. They've invested in many branches to manipulate the populace into valuing individualism and to despise any system that encourages unity. And this is something that philosophers, as referenced in the video, have known for a long time. I expect tracking the progression of civilizations from beginning to end will show this pattern of assembly, growth, rapid expansion, and inevitable collapse as wealth turns its citizens from social animals to hyper individuals as that last stage is anathema to a society. Anthropologists have found that dead civilizations show a marked depletion of resources. These are lessons that need to be learned if we're ever going to stop the cycle of civilization extinction. So, no; I don't think there should be such thing as such extremely stratified wealth. It's not just that it doesn't serve society; it works to destroy it. Not as an intent, but as an unavoidable byproduct. Wealth accumulation should be treated as the disease it is. Just some thoughts.
@@Insert_generic_username If you have an argument I am interested in hearing it. It's part of the reason I post such comments. I have thoughts and want them to be correct. If I'm mistaken, I'm interested in how. Thank you.
@@Insert_generic_username Oh, and I wouldn't just encourage unionizing. There are top-down unions which are more akin to corporate models that actually end up serving corporations, or themselves. I would encourage organizing, and learning about the difference between top-down models and bottom-up models that encourage democracy and active participation in understanding the nature of institutions and both the benefits and dangers they represent. It's a community building approach.
When I have more than I need, I start getting the people I know and love gifts. I take into account what they need and help them get it. As such, I could always do with more money. Because if I can get money where others can't, I can help them. How billionaires look at worn down streets and think nothing of them is a wonder to me. We need a video on that. Even when I had no money I was trying to figure out ways to help. An inspirational person I know was making ceramic chairs so old people could sit someone and actually get to walk around their town. One person with no money did more than people like Elon Musk have done in years. I think people like that should be at the steering wheel, not billionaires.
“He who knows he has enough is rich”
Lao Tzu
I’m printing it and putting on a wall at my place ❤
It's powerful, indeed! Thank you!
I'm American. I'm bankrupt due to health. I have no income because I'm not technically disabled, even though I can't work. How much is enough??? Can I please get my chronic pain taken care of? Please!!! That would be enough, thank you.
Pro-capitalists: "Humans are commodities. If you can't sell your time, then you don't deserve to live."
Just move to a sane country and pay for affordable excellent PRIVATE care, (like I did) and stop hallucinating that your slave-owners in the land of the fee, home of the slave, are going to do anything for you that a farmer would not do for his cows.
You live on the Jones Plantation. You should leave.
Sorry, tax money goes to bombs and foreign wars. Not the sick or in real need.
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems pain is a disability. I'm sorry it's not being recognized as the handicap it is.
Sadly, all you can do is get an attorney who fights for SSDI, which is often only around a thousand per month, and ask the judge to backdate it to the app date so your 2.5 year wait for Medicare will be over be the time your case goes to court. Apply now. In the long term, the politics of medicine is really cracking down on palliative pain care. If you don’t have a family member to with you to test off-label things, you may have to go to a major university hospital to see a palliative doc about installing a tiny opioid dose pain pump into your spinal fluid. If nothing works enough to get you up and moving, you at have to use SSDI back payment to go to Switzerland for physician-assisted suicide since the USA doesn’t even guarantee abortion even for a deformed fetus after six weeks in all states and will never have euthanasia in our lifetime except for patients in the final months of cancer anyhow so it spares them the stage when morphine doesn’t help when the cancer eats them during the last week or so…. America is the worst advanced country to be in if you have chronic pain, even worse than Canada, which is saying something! Good luck getting out of pain and into peace!
Nations with higher reported happiness tend to be the nations that are more equal in income and wealth, and vice versa. I don't know in which direction the causality runs or if there is some different common cause, but this seems worth keeping in mind. Also, countries with more equal wealth distributions tend to have higher overall growth rates, so extreme inequality is sort of a tax on everyone.
Funny thing is people will call this communism but they clearly didn't read Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism who thought the role of government was to keep markets healthy which meant making sure there is enough competition and no monopolies or too much concentration of capital. The guy was very worried too much capital concentration will make rich people control politics
The confusion between capitalism and its demented cousin corporatism is understandable but still annoying.
@@amossypile7665 Your comment is far more annoying dude. No one cares.
@@We1rdHaTguY lol putz
@@We1rdHaTguY What you're describing is called having zero curiosity and a brain void of any thought.
@@raphaeli.5649 Oooo good one, how original. Lmao. Bro you're so dense, not even light can escape you.
Billionaires should not be illegal, they should be impossible.
Still dreaming? 💤💤
We can do both.
Set a tax that targets wealth over a certain amount that acts as an upper limit while improving labor rights and use thoss taxes to fund public services like healthcare or UBI.
@Gingersnaps_the_pumpkin_kitty
They'd just go to a country where they dont have to pay as much taxes, because we're all greedy
@@Gingersnaps_the_pumpkin_kitty What I mean by impossible is that it should not be possible for billions of whatever currency to go to a single person in the first place. There should be no billionaire-creating distribution before the redistribution through taxes.
Taxes are useful for creating demand for a currency, influencing buying habits and controlling the amount of money in the economy. It should not be necessary to use them for redistribution or even state financing.
Or yall can just demand ur institutions make them accountable for crimes.
No this idea is much better😂
So, who gets to say what's the limit?
The next person in power?
Then the next?
You all are the type to complain about late stage capitalism as well while not bothering to say anything about the destruction and bypassing of monopoly laws completely undermining a capitalist society.
No, yall have fought a war of attrition on corruption because we forgot why we were ever fighting.
Yall just targeting the only people who will have enough singular power to fight these crime syndicates who are coraling yall for the government without their knowledge.
Then, when they take life insurance policies out on the people, yall worth more gone than productive.
Our government is a business.
Our competence has bn destroyed due to the opiate wars.
This government will turn you as a profit one way or another.
Even if it means grinding your bones to make their bread in a literal sense.
We'll collapse when we don't switch to automated production just because these mafias own greed for drug money, control, and slave crops they all pick put by the American people feeling entitled to do so because they spit on the very God country that gave em the ability.
All while the poorest and those crazy enough to fight think the syndicates are watching out for the little man.
Y?
Because it doesn't matter how someone takes control of the biomaterial, only that they do.
This entire thing is the most counter productive option I can think of.
How exactly do you plan to take their wealth considering most these people are smart enough to already have their own self sustainability outside of what makes them money?
No your right we can l8bby n complain until we fight violently about anothers collective pile of debt bonds.
Not even real monitary finances but debt letters.
So then all the incredibly rich can use advanced tech, go into nuclear shelters n rid themselves of most the troublesome garbage to replace them with robots.
Or maybe we'll get one n then for several hundred years the rest of growing world will remember whst the people did n have no business or wealth brought here.
Then you can enjoy sitting n playing in dirt while bombs wreck your families but hey I bet you'll feel good lighting the Rockefeller buildings on fire.
Its not like most are old and needing to be replaced anyway.
Seems like a good excuse to have taxpayers replace them after burning them.
But it's cool ur neighbors will thank you afterward when an 18 mo th food shortage comes n we go back to tying women to trees and cutting their breast's off for food.
Ever considered protecting a weaker you love from a stronger group that wants to literally use them for food?
Go look up Russian cannibal island then start talking about this.
Wanna make things even?
Get people things at low cost to yourself or no cost.
Help them with food shelter and water.
I highly doubt creating a war against the people who have the most power in a system we all have decided to follow is a bad idea.
the fundimental flaw you missed in the first few min is that once people hit a certain amount of wealth, it's not about "enough", the wealth becomes a highscore.
I believe you're right.
@@mrman991 that’s a great point.
Olympians train to set the best record in the respective sport. Same for competitive capitalists. Olympians increase their medal count and capitalists increase their wealth count.
Do you think it’s moral and logical to let olympians to do their best to beat records even though some people don’t have
1) the desire to compete
2) the training required
3) born without legs ?
My understanding of your comment is that this it’s wrong for capitalist to see their wealth as a highscore, how so?
Ps.
John D. Rockefeller’s highscore still has not been broken.
If an olympian gets a medal, there are no negative effects on anyone. Thats different with money as this video explains very well. And I don't think its not moral, because the system allows it, so nobody can be blamed to use this opportunity. But thats why it should be illegal
@@lionke4990 if the Olympians wins, their competitors lost. All the time and money invested gone. Money is a little different.
Amazon can kill small retail stores. Like the Olympian winning their respective sport.
Amazon does not stop people from accumulating wealth in different ways. The best archer is not going to stop the best sprinter from winning
@@keplersiguineau The difference is your athletic performance is not boosted by other people's work whose livelihoods depend on how much you decide to give them back after you win.
"If a monkey hoarded more bananas than it could eat, while most of the other monkeys starved, scientists would study that monkey to figure out what the heck was wrong with it. When humans do it, we put them on the cover of Forbes." - Nathalie Robin Justice
It sounds like a nice quote, but I wouldn't put much stock in it. I don't really believe that to be true. Monkies have hierarchies and killing other monkeys isn't uncommon. I agree with the principle, but it's a really poor analogy.
Yeah that's always been a stupid take, if a monkey actually did that everyone would be marveling at how smart that monkey is who can understand the uncertainty of the future and the importance of ensuring one's own survival. Besides, if you actually believed that was a valid take you wouldn't hoard money or things would you? But you do. If you have a single dollar saved then you've just destroyed any argument your trying to make using that dumb quote.
@@kevinhank17One dollar isn't "more than you could ever eat"
@rady7273 well I wouldn't eat a dollar, so not sure what your point is. Try harder.
@@kevinhank17 My guy, you understand it's a survival strategy to take care of eachother, right? Ever hear of a species collaborating? Ever hear of them working together? It's almost like evolution selects for it and it increases your chances of reproduction. Who are you going to reproduce with when everyone else is dead?
"If you have a single dollar saved then you've just destroyed any argument" That's the dumbest thing I've read online in a very long time. I honest to god am speechless. Sharing doesn't mean "donate everything you have", you know that. Ah yes, let me share some money with this homeless guy, I'll just give him everything I own and will ever own. Get a grip and think about the words that leave your mouth. Completely shocking.
How the hell do people still believe in "one day Ill be as rich as them" while some people in 1930s knew it to be a fraud and a scam
What are you on about?
Depends on who the THEM is....I worked my way into the top 15-10% overall. That seems pretty rich to me. Could have and could still do more...but you know what is REALLY rich? Knowing that at any pt, I can just decide to NOT work....and be perfectly fine for the rest of my life. So its not a scam, its about choices.
And yet you are 100x richer now than the richest person in the 1930's. You got a fancier cellphone, laptop, fancier toilet, heating, variety of food, refrigerator, fancier vacations, etc. Why is that?
I was opposed to a limit but the idea of a max based on the lowest earning would be great. Say a CEO can't make more than 10x the lowest paid employee. Than these people are motivated to increase earnings for those who need it most so that they can increase their own earnings.
How do you want to count that because forcing all employee to take 90% of their pay in stock that they can't sell would do that. Can you live on 10% of your pay?
@aaronjjacques idk man it's just a concept. Perhaps do not allow the stock value to exceed 10× lowest paid employee salary at the time of payment. Even still if a company you own 1% of grows to be a trillion dollar company you would still become a billionaire @@aaronjjacques
@Mikkerd12 or people can choose to get paid the same way as ceo by maxing out their employee match rather then expecting the beurocracy to fix the prolem for them.
@@aaronjjacques an employee match isn't a thing everywhere. I 100% agree people should fix their own finances tho because most people would still be poor if they made 10x what they make now. They would just be living paycheck to paycheck in a sportscar. It is almost always their own fault when "the month is to long"
@Mikkerd12 97.5% of the publically traded company have at least an employee match. It is an easy way for a company to reduce expenses by just writing options (which strike when the vesting period ends). If you are in 2.5% oh the horror, you invest at the same rate as retail instead of the 2:1 ratio.
Bernie Sanders has been saying this for 30 years but nobody’s listening. It’s frustrating.
All invalid points - >Point 1.Says stats are wrong on assumtion. point 2 is Extreme wealth has nothing to do with Extreme poverty. you can not elevate people with handing out money who have poor financial habits.Yes extreme wealth can turn into politics obviously but you dont like it because its not your favorite poplitical party. Lets mention billionaires who affect politics who are democratic. there are many. Point 3: There Always will be Inequality because There is inequality in skills,minds,capabilities that benifit more or less to society. What should we do faults : Why should we limit how much someone can earn ? why is it to the rich only ? isnt that Inequality in in itself. why not you? your wealth can also lift up at least one person or more ? are you willing to give up half of your house so some one can have equal house as you?
@1:24 The limit should be 999 million, and then you get a trophy that says: You won capitalism 🎉.
Also, in my opinion, a million dollars (adjusted for inflation) should be enough per person.
@@Aios_Blaise 32 bit integer limit.
2,147,483,647 is your highest amount before its automatically negative and it will go down to zero.
@@Ilikefire2793 i like the part where it goes to the negative 🧐
@@Aios_Blaise That's 50K a year for 20 years. Better make it last.
@@PabloGonzalez-hv3td in a T-bill at 2.5% you get 25k a year indefinitely. This off course, taking an average interest rate. 25k a year in a state of perpetuity (kind of). You could just support an endeavour. Another job. Is not meant to make you rich. I said it should be enough. If 25k is not enough, then double it. Make it 2 million into T-bills. The point is, it's not unreasonable or unbearable for the economy.
Anyone here defending millionaires but not a millionaire themselves - know that you are getting taxed more on your hard earned income than they are getting taxed just through owning assets and owning money.
Anybody can become a millionaire with hard work, determination, and mostly luck.
But the only way to become a Billionaire is by leeching wealth from the poor through means at your disposal. High predatory fees and interest rates, sweat shops in foreign countries, wage theft, "political donations", cost cutting by destroying communities and environments and entire ecosystems...
THAT is why billionaires are the problem and not necessarily millionaires
Anyone can own assets and be taxed less...I do...and I'm not yet a millionaire.
@@been_a_bean we get taxed 20%millionaires get taxed 40% so your wrong
@@gnosis33-real it takes you,a gnostic to explain this
@@been_a_bean They do get taxed the same.
I find it funny that people will defend millionaires and billionaires, but when you talk about raising wages for service workers and suddenly, they say, "They don't deserve that much money."
@jimmydean1831 alot of words to just reaffirm the original comment....
@@jimmydean1831the exact reason why op made this comment, truly astonishing to see the dk effect in play.
@@jimmydean1831wow, you proved their point. Amazing.
I don't think we have the authority to say what people deserve. Unless we are talking about morality then we can make judgements about someone's actions based on a standard. When it comes to success and money, life goes well for some, life is hard for others 🤷🏻♂️. It is true that some millionaires didn't start from zero and were given a lot. But somebody had to work for it. One day I'll have children and I wouldn't want someone saying "hey your kid doesn't deserve those 20 bucks because he didn't work for it."
Imo, millionaires in this economy, reasonable. Not saying millions a year, but imagine having one house... In my country you'd soon be close to having a million when you have one, and you need a roof over your head. That being said, minimum wage workers are often worth more for what they deliver than multi millionaires. And most certainly more than billionaires, who always extract too much from the system.
Seeing this from a third world country where rich is becoming richer and poor is becoming poorer . The richest guy in my country has 110 billion dollars but average salary is just 300 dollars per month 😅 . Such a cruel world .
Are you from India?
So many temporarily poor billionaires in the comments. No counter arguments just salt, rage and "FrEEdoM" for some reason? Lol calm guys, billionaires won't pay any attention to your bootlicking and no you won't join them no matter how much you sigma grind.
You mispelled freedumb
Yep, accurate observation and analysis to many of the comments here defending capitalism and extreme wealth hoarders. That's the other sad thing that capitalist society produces: Brainwashed masses who repeat programmed status-quo defending propaganda, with no real facts or arguments to back it up. They would collapse with any bit of scrutiny or questioning.
So it is best to ignore them. They won't be helping. They will be yelling in the basement and hitting their head against the wall. Poor them.
Be on the system change side of things with people who believe in it, because it is more invigorating. Check out One Small Town initiative, Zeitgeist Movement, Moneyless Society and World Beyond Capitalism for more.
Free doom
"Freedom"???? Billionares are directly responsible for limiting the freedom of the working class!
Here’s a rebuttal. I don’t want a government that pays 90k for a bag of bolts that cost 200 dollars at Home Depot. The government is constantly waisting and pocketing money. You are really advocating for bureaucrats in power over billionaire’s. Both don’t have ur best interest in heart😊
I mean just look at how most companies are organized - they're limited liability. So the owners can't lose more than they initially invested, but on the other hand, the gains they can reap are unlimited and scale as a percentage of ownership. That's a literal scam.
I read this recently somewhere:
"If we eat just one billionaire, the rest will take notice and get back in line."
@@mikebronicki8264 you mean “steal from”. These words are eloquently worded hate speech. Isn’t the left’s answer to that to throw you in jail?
Or they'll leave and take their jobs with them while you turn into Venezuela
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 sure, because it is easy to move and find another country with the size of the US economy. (And the stability that comes with 2 oceans and the world's largest navy.)
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 I'm gonna become a country? Wow that's crazy
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 good let them leave, now there will be opportunities for new businesses and more equality
You’d think leather would be America’s national dish considering how much bootlicking is going on in this comment section
Must be bots
I dont understand why a normal person would be defending them so hard otherwise
There are no ethical billionairs
Yeah
😅
@@martins-tl9bu bots, yeah all the billionaire haters 😄we actually know stuff, you know we went to school. As opposed to idiots like you that are still at Mickey Mouse level . Grow up read some books take a degree or two in economics then we can talk
LOL, good one
We are going back to feudalism.
Our employers own half of our waking hours, a quarter is owned by our landlords and the other to huge supermarket chains.
And we are LIVING less and less.
And this is truly even in rich and poor countries. It's truly sad.
@@a31-hq1jk Capitalism is just neo-feudalism.
@@a31-hq1jk Well, you could not leave your feudal at will. But you can change the employer, or become self-employed or hire people or invest.
@enotbegemot1240 let's all be self employed and change jobs all the time because it's so easy
@@a31-hq1jk they make it sound so easy, don't they.
@@enotbegemot1240 A lot of feudal peasants could actually move and were paid to do so, feudal lords would offer benefits to attract migrant peasants but later chip down on those benefits as they settled. Heavily depends on region, time & circumstance.
The problem with money is, that there is a point where you only can get richer, if you exploit human beings, animals and the evironment. This point is where we should set the line.
No
If you have that much money that you can do virtually anything, you should first contribute to solving the worlds problems etc. then you can get richer as you of course still earn your own money
Nope. Disagree. Taylor swift is not exploiting anyone and she is a billionaire. May high end athletes only explot their own bodies, such as football, and make millions or hundred of millions. Again, not oppressing anyone just make the most of their hard work. Three are bad actors sure, but the mere existance of someone who makes a lot of money does NOT make them exploitive....you need more than that to make that claim.
@ not everyone exploits and there are surely people who worked hard for the money but money still needs to be valued and you still need to have morals, it’s laughable how much co2 Taylor emmitted with her jet flights
Average business man with cluster b personality disorders
My salary gets taxed to oblivion but there are people who can buy countries and they don't get taxed....makes sense. Love the world we live in
Like who?
Extreme wealth is obscene, but extreme wealthy individuals preaching how to solve societal problems even more so.
Why? They are simply great at managing resources, which is why they are rich. They are the best suited to manage that money, obviously.
Poor people are poor because they suck at managing resources.
@@saddleyouruniverse if we are so passive, asleep and uninformed then it happens
@@calysagora3615 most billionaires attribute their wealth to just getting lucky with a terribly average idea while already having a shit ton of money from their parents. Not to mention maintaining that wealth is simply just fucking everyone over who gets in your way. no billionaire is particularly good at their jobs compared to the average person.
take elon musk, bill gates, bernard arnault, all of which came from immense wealth and got lucky with their surroundings. by your logic, a guy who manages inventory at a store should be richer than all of the names just listed but that simply just is not the case.
quit bootlicking the 1% that couldn't give less of a fuck about you
@@calysagora3615 if you have me barely enough resources to survive for longer period you easily aquire master skills at managing resources.
"[extreme wealthy individuals] are the best suited to manage that money, obviously." - that is bs. Learn how wealthy aquire theit wealth - it is not by skill
They are in a great position to do something about it, especially now. Let's get them to put some of their more suitable ideas actually into action. Also, make it illegal soon to have so much money generation, divert these funds to suitable, well-thought out activities that benefit society and the world. Lastly, just because they have extreme money, does NOT mean they are a better person on average than anyone poorer. The higher the rewards in business, the higher the competition, and this tends to lead to some being more tempted to act unethically. This ruthless culture slows progress, and can damage the plant/society. We must therefor carefully change society to cap extreme wealth, and reward those people and institutions that actually benefit humanity and the environment. Stop blindly enabling psycho behaviour and following corporate drone-culture and realise most of us (not the psychos) are more powerful together, and this can start with feeling better!
Hit 200k today. Thank you for all the
knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started with 14k in
Wow that's awesome
But I still love my mentor Sophia
I have heard about her since last year
I'm 60 and my wife 53 we are both retired with over $1 million in net worth and no debt currently living smart and frugal with our money. Saving and investing lifestyle in the church stock market made it possible for us this early even still now we still earning weekly
Wow. I'm a bit perplexed seeing her been mentioned here also Didn't know she has been good to so many people too this is wonderful, I'm in my fifth trade with her and it has been
I don’t understand why people think that voting conservative would make them richer! They don’t understand that even if they‘re „kind of wealthy“ they still have more in common with to the poor that the rich
I remember seeing a video on a rescued puppy being petted for the first time; at first it was screaming in panic because it had never felt a loving touch before, only abuse, but as soon as it realized what was actually going on, it loved it.
I was reminded of this because it's probably how most americans would react to nordic model social democracy.
You appear to embody the blonde stereotype. Just because something works in some countries for a while, doesn't mean it'll work everywhere forever.
@@rutessian "Just because something works in some countries for a while, doesn't mean it'll work everywhere forever."
Funny, that's the exact _opposite_ of the argument the US uses to justify spreading its ideology abroad. "Democracy works in the US so let's spread it to the Middle East." "Capitalism is the only way forward because it works so wonderfully here."
Most of the problem is "unaffordable housing". This drives the need for income to pay mortgages or rent. This traps people in a lifetime of debt hence the desire for one million to pay for a home and some cash left over to live on.
Good point! How do we change that?
By taxing the rich 🤑 @@TheMarketExit
@@TheMarketExit Getting rid of the state's regulations on zoning laws??? Btw, homeownership today is as high as in the 1960s. It has really not changed that much. The overall standard of living is also up. Consumption based poverty has decreased from ~30% in the 1980s to ~6% today, and people work far less for far more access to goods and services than ever.
Your entire video entirely ignores the actual problems here, and that is statist interventionism in the economy, not muh billionaires. Billionaires are entirely irrelevant; if anything, they are just a result of the FEDs power expansion during the Nixon years with the abolishment of the gold standard. Of course, when you abolish the only thing that keeps the USD valuable and grant the FED full power to increase the money supply, that's what will happen. They expended the money supply by purchasing securities from large banks, those banks used the money for lending, and those with high credit scores (large corporations and billionaires) borrowed the money. Effectively redistributing the purchasing power from the majority to the minority of super wealthy individuals.
Make a cap on wealth, and then what??? Where is that supposed to go? Are companies just not allowed to grow anymore? Are you forced to sell your assets, and the money is taken away from you by an inefficient state that will waste it more than anybody could possibly do? That's an insane idea. There's nothing evil or wrong about having a large portion of wealth (i.e owning shares of companies) - it's precisely what contributes to economic growth. Yes, it becomes a problem when the state uses its power to manipulate the market in favor of some, but that's certainly not the markets' fault. At this point, you better lobby the government because otherwise you will be the target of it. We already saw what happens to those billionaires that didn't lobby the government. They get destroyed by it. Many such cases.
Build more houses then.
Let supply meet demand. Problem solved.
You limit supply politically, via permits and whatnot, you get artificially low supply.
Do you seriously think land owners would not want to take advantage of high prices, i.e. high ROE?
Zoning laws are not the issue. Yhat is just kicking the can down the road. The issue is that housing, wether single family home or appartment buildings should be a place to live. Not an in investment for companies. @@YangChuan2001
14:25 He who knows he has enough is rich
The comment section is "the American dream" in action. People would rather be controlled and exploited by the super rich than accept the fact they will never be part of the 0.003%.
Sadly these amazing ideas are completely unrepresented in politics and the media.
Probably because the rich own both.
No probably about it.
There's something interesting about what you said. The rich simply own it. A few people.
What about the majority of people that consume and create the media? Do they get a free pass and only the CEOs are to blame?
If someone tells you to kill someone else, are you removed from all responsibility?
This is 1000% why. They make all our livelihoods - particularly those of the politicians and media - dependent on defending their story of wealth so that no-one can openly challenge it, no matter how absurd it becomes.
I’ve been saying for years that “I have no desire to be rich, I just want to live a comfortable life without extreme debt”
I feel like I do that, and I only gross about $65 - $70k a year.
The only thing I’m in debt for is my house.
In fact medical emergency would be the only thing that could sink me at this point.
I really don’t understand the kind of greed that thinks they need all of the world’s money. I mean that literally, it’s not enough to have more money than most entire countries they want all of your money too!!
It’s insane to think like this!!
So you must be American? Because in no other first world country would anyone even consider the idea that healthcare might bankrupt them!
@@keldsleepnot7961 Most people in America are one emergency away from losing all their life savings, it's incredibly depressing
"I really don’t understand the kind of greed that thinks they need all of the world’s money. I mean that literally, it’s not enough to have more money than most entire countries they want all of your money too!!
It’s insane to think like this!!"
It would be insane if that's what they did, but they don't. The insane thing is thinking they do. Scrooge Mc Duck is NOT real. Hoarding is NOT how you get rich. Wealthy people DO NOT sit on money or waste it on stupid shit, that's poor people behavior.
Leftists really needs to get out of their childish envious toddler attitudes and their cartoonish mythological nonsense about how wealthy people live.
You ONLY gross 70K??? FFS, I could live like some filthy rich royalty on that kind of money. Maybe you need to review your living costs.
$65 - $70k a year is around 8 times I make in a year. It's not a figure you can put "only" in front of
@@williamdebordjr. I miss being in the mental state you are in. Although I was born in a poor family I took every opportunity I found to do better, and could've written the same message here as you did 2 decades ago, but then I was crazy enough to go all-in with a business and just in the span of 2 years due to change in regulations and one poor business decision I not only lost everything I had at that point (including my house and girlfriend), I'm still paying a loanshark that appropriated the debt from my Bank.
One thing that bothers me about the rich is they take huge amounts of income away from workers.
Look at Elon and Tesla for example. Elon's annual compensation has recently been around $45,000,000,000 from Tesla. At the same time ALL Tesla employees combined get $11,000,000,000 and each worker gets no more than $40,000 to $200,000. Why should one man take 4x more of a companies profits than every worker combined.
Consider Elon is not alone. Most companies have the CEO and owners getting the gross majority of the profits.
Back in the 60's and 70's the CEOs and owners only got about 20x to 100x more than the average worker. Now CEOs and owners often get up to 50,000,000x more than workers.
Keep in mind if Elon's wealth was distributed amongst every US worker at his companies, each worker in the US would get well over $1,000,000 (one million dollars each). It is insane for one man to be that wealthy and to take such an enormous percentage of company profits!
This reduction of income for the middle class is making it much more difficult for workers to afford what they need compared to the 60's and 70's.
My father in 1970 earned $30,000 per year as a young engineer and he bought his current house for $32,000. With only his single income he paid off the house in 5 years while buying 2 new cars for $2500 and $3000, furnishing his house with new everything, traveling around the world on annual vacations, etc.
Today, his same house is worth $1,000,000 and a young engineer earns about $60,000. The reduction in value of workers pay is insane. Today a similar car to what my father bought costs $50,000 or almost the entire annual salary.
This is not sustainable. If more and more of company profits continue to go to the owners and CEOs, pay will not be enough for any worker to be able to afford to live in a house.
What we need are government policies like what were in place in the 1935 to 1970 time where income and capital gains above $3,000,000 to $10,000,000 was taxed at well over 90% and corporate profits were taxed at 55% to 70%. That is the biggest reason inequality dropped between 1930 until 1970. Keep in mind corporate profits are after corporate expenses, like employee pay and corporate R&D are subtracted from corporate revenue. Companies don't suffer from high marginal taxes, only the rich suffer by their income being limited.
Note I am not suggesting owners and CEOs not get more than workers, just that government tax policy should limit it to something like 100x more than well paid workers. The current policy of unlimited pay for owners and CEOs is insane.
You have discovered the real problem, you are just wrong about what it is. The actual issue is the inflation in prices far above the average salaries in the US. And the reason for this is because the US is full of materialistic narcissists that don't care about how much something costs, they just have to have 'X' product to be socially validated. So companies can charge pretty much whatever they want for shitty products because they know the average US consumer will buy it anyway. Years ago, RCA TV's were renowned for their durability. Personally I had one that survived a house fire and falling on my head while still working just fine. Now you go buy a TV and breath on it wrong and it breaks. And there is a name for this. It's called 'planned obsolescence'. And the only people to blame is the US consumer. We have brought this hellscape upon ourselves with our insatiable appetite for substandard, shiny products that are no where near worth what we pay for them
We actually need a new form of society. The humanity already have the ability and technology to feed everyone on earth for decades, the only reason that actually don't happens is because is not lucrative for companies.
I live in Brazil, I decided not to be a scientist because there is no investment for that (I could end up homeless if I did it here). The biggest companies are agricultural and they put pressure on the government to keep the country deindustrialized, they don't want to lose their monopoly.
@@vitoremanuel4292 Brazilian here as well and yeah, the economic model of the country is basically run by the interests of big agriculture companies and there's nothing we can do. They made many previous governments subsidies that went to industry and research in other areas so agriculture would mantain the hegemony in the country.
@staceyhamilton3982 You are essentially saying the same thing as me.
Yes, I fully agree that salaries have not kept up with prices.
One interesting statistic is that if you look at total or average compensation for everyone, including the top 1%, it has perfectly kept up with how prices and the costs of living have increased.
Think about how that is possible. How can average or total compensation have kept up with the costs of living, yet typical middle and low income earners now have approximately 1/10th the buying power they did in 1970?
The reason for this discrepancy is that top earner compensation has increased by 10,000 to 100,000 times what they earned back then, yet regular worker income has only roughly doubled. Since on a dollar basis costs of living have gone up by about 20x what they were in 1970, it is now roughly 10x harder for workers to afford things like a home, a vehicle, etc. At the same time, if you are in the top 1% of earners, your buying power has increased by as much as 5,000x.
In general, companies selling products & services make a significant, but limited operating income excluding labor. How that income is split up between workers, the executive and stock holders matters. There is only so much available money, so if the rich get 90% of it, there is much less available to go to the workers.
The majority of people think it doesn't matter how much more billionaires take year after year, but it really does matter.
If everyone understood this, they would start to understand why it is so important for governments to set target levels of inequality and to instil policies that control this inequality.
Pure, unregulated capitalism behaves like it does in the game of monopoly. Over time, there will be winners who own everything and everyone else, the workers, become the loosers.
Many people, myself included previously, believe that pure capitalism will self regulate and provide prosperity for everyone willing to work hard.
Unfortunately, in reality, free, unregulated capitalism only works well for somewhere around 30 years following some sort of "reset" (like a great depression, or societal monetary collapse, or start of a new country). After that, inequality becomes an ever increasing problem.
In my work, we've run many simulations, looking at free capitalism and how it works. The reality is it doesn't work long term...
It is funny how people with so little can defend people with so much....
It’s really insane. The boot licking is beyond anything. No one should be able to amass that much wealth.
That wealth is immoral and never made ethically. The influence that it causes is also immoral. Wealth does not equal speech.
It is npt about having something. It is about keeping what you really deserve and generated.
@@LlenadeMalowealth is moral.
@@enotbegemot1240 Meritocratie is a lie, most people in the top 1000 of the richest people on earth were born in very rich family, you should not deserve more because of your birth. Another exemple is that the majority of people that actually matters to the world like nobel prizes, top scientists, physicists, mathematician etc... are far from rich. The richest people on earth are shareowners who barely work, they do not create anything, they pay competent people to create things for them and at really low wages compared to how much their work benefit the company .
The worst is that people like you are mostly poor, nepo babies do not waste their time making comments on the web, and yet you defend the rich as if you were actually benefiting from them being rich which is insane. Sometime I actually wonder how the average person view the world, it's like they are unable to form coherent thoughts so they end up unable to defend their own interests.
@tolmir2929 Actually, children are entitled to their parents' money. Why don't they deserve it? Because it is not in your interests? Each generation is trying to pass the results of their work to the next one. And it is okay. You are trying to sell your interests as some justice or fairness. It is not okay.
To preface, I agree with your message, but extreme wealth does not threaten capitalism, it is the direct result of Capitalism. Under ideal capitalistic conditions absolute consolidation of power is the natural endpoint, so capitalism has currently achieved exactly what it's principles are
I agree, it only threatens the ideal version of capitalism that we're taught as children, which doesn't really exist.
NAILED IT!!!!
The worst thing about capitalism is that both of these are true. Extreme wealth is the direct result of capitalism, and also a major threat to it. iirc this is something Marx talks about in Capital
@@GreatWhiteElf Unfortunately he didn't foresee the emergence of fascism, which revives and prolongs the life of capitalism.
You're right. There has to be made the difference between capitalism and free market economy.
While this one also does not work without problems, it could be a workable and somewhat fair economic system, if it was based on ideal circumstances where everyone starts with the same/a comparable amount of ressources and opportunities.
And this is the thing that monopolys/billionairs are destroying: free markets.
Sadly most people don't know the difference between capitalism and market economy.
If markets were truly free, it would be nearly impossible to become a billionaire. We can get closer to a free market, reduce prices of things like medicine by doing two unpopular things; one, patent reform by either limiting patents to five years, ending method patents altogether or give 5% royalty payments to all patent holders giving access for all. two, eliminate or reduce or eliminate licensure laws for the professions like the medical profession. Two simple reforms that nobody in the USA at least, wants to do but will work.
My issue is that money can buy power and influence at levels that lead to horrific inequality. Billionaires can fund campaigns, donate to organizations that favor their interests over the interests of the masses and allows them to buy levers of influence like social media companies where they can control the narrative. It’s not money that is the core issue it’s the ability to convert that wealth into power and influence that buys them the ability to push through laws that overwhelmingly are aligned with their interests over the interests of society. That is a serious issue.
true
This.
Excatly
I agree 100%, especially since they get wealthier on the backs of all those without a lot of money & conspire to make like as hard as they can for the rest of us instead of trying to make things better.
It is literally impossible to become a billionaire without exploiting thousands of people. Anyone who is in favour of billionaires, is in favour of explotation. Not accepting of exploitation, in favour of it.
It’s the same with the other systems to be frank 😂 it’s actually worse with other systems
@@haroldgarcia9267What systems has humanity tried?
We've tried the absolute authority of a single man.
We've tried the absolute authority of money.
What else have we tried?
How?
@LordWaterBottle wow, the ignorance is enormous in you. Fix that or shut up, no one cares about your worthless opinion. Educate yourself and make your opinion worthy of listening too. Like seriously, you think in the hundreds of thousands of years of humanity we've only tried 2 incredibly simple systems of governance? You can't be that dumb.
Well it's not necessarily illegal in most countries. In most cases the people know they are being exploited but they still do nothing.
$1M usd sounds like a lot until you have health problems in the US.
Tjrs why the limit on the US is 5. Because in Europe we have universal healthcare so 1 million is enough.
I’m I Europe . And I have even calculated that 2,4 million is enough form birth till your 100th anniversary is enough (if you had 2000€ per month every year).
Or 960k for a work life of 40 years until retirement. Which would correspond to people answering that 1 million is enough as they are no longer kids.
@@Greeniykyk Yah one million is plenty if your Healthcare is taken care of by your government like a civilized country.
Well if you live in a third world country like in the US then, yes maybe a little bit more is needed
And what country has national healthcare and IS NOT perpetually in debt? Answer: NONE
You sound like a child with a comment like that, try getting out of your parents basement and GO to a third world country before showcasing your ignorance.
Unfortunately, by the time the vast majority of people realise that the only way to fix this is by dragging them from their over-priced, over-sized houses, it will be far too late, as there will already be private security forces to prevent precisely this sort of thing from happening.
A worrying amount of people here defending billionaires and I'm not sure if they truly understand how much a billion is and how that amount can be gained or even the purpose of tax.
We have a minimum wage. We should have a maximum wage as well.
Too many people are in poverty.
There are millionaires that have a smaller income than some people in poverty. This is the issue with that idea I believe. Bills make us poor; if we owned all our cars, homes and had no kids in the house... I'd only need around 25k a year to eat, pay insurance, property taxes and phone bills. I think the most unfair disadvantage against middle and lower class, is the lack of rightful financial education that's been neglected in public schools. Why is it that grown adults find out about investing through a job, and the best option they think they have is a, try not to laugh, traditional 401k 🙄
@@BlackAndBlueGarage what do you mean by some millionaires having a smaller income than someone in poverty
@@poopoo1533billionaires get their money because they created companies. And they own a big part of the company. All their wealth comes from the money that the company is worth and they might not get that big of a salary.
Creating a maximum wage and redistribution of anything over it does not lift people out of poverty, it will drop more people into poverty. You have no knowledge of economics.
Ok ... But who will stay with the money from the millionaires?
The government?
And even if the poor and other people stay with the money, won't that make people stop working?
I swear, only rich people say “be grateful for grapefruit and toes” knowing they would jump in a volcano if they lost everything but a $5k.
Never in human history have so many been oppressed by so few...
Can you show me specifically where Bill Gates has hurt you?
I always find it weird there is a minimum wage but not a maximum?
Sorry to dissapoint you, but those billionare guys did not became rich because of their wage. They didn't receive billions as their sallary, lol
Billionaires are sink holes. Imagine if 99% of what they’re hoarding got released back into the economy. The world would be better off and they’d still be rich.
They are not hoarding cash, for example they could have lots of factories that create jobs. Why would the world become a better place by making billionaires liquidate all their assets and give their money away?
@@tomgon3D they are “hoarding” capital keep it allocated to production rather than released to compete with your dollars at the grocery store. The left doesn’t understand the concept of inflation.
@@alexisduarte3917Thank you!! You're absolutely right! This comment section is so clueless!
You say that just because you do not know how market-economy works :D
@ I think they know but pretend not to… just prefer to have others feed them while they either sit on their ass or go party.
I have a shit paid job, drive a 20 year old car, and have to look for discounts and count when I buy groceries because my budget is tight. On the other hand, I have a house worth close to a million Euro that I inherited. When my parents bought it, it was really cheap. If I sell the house, I will have to pay a similar price to get another one. If I move out, I am too far from the job, waste hours, and money on transportation. Am I a millionaire? Doesn't feel like it...
Being reasonably wealthy is being able to live comfortably and buy the stuff that you need without counting your pennies. Being excessively wealthy is when you can affect your politics beyond what a regular citizen can. Now, you are not a citizen anymore. You have entered the nobility in a feudal system. You can buy politicians, fund "think tanks" and groom young student lawyers until one or two reach high positions as judges and are indebted to you.
I get what you're saying, but coming from someone who inherited literally nothing, your situation sounds extremely privileged. More than a third of my salary goes towards rent, and I'm forced to commute 2.5-3 hours/day because I can't afford anything more than a tiny studio apartment closer to my job. It is almost impossible for me to build up savings in this situation, so that owning a home is not currently feasible even thinking in the long-term. And for the record, I have a PhD and am above the median salary for my country. I would have so much extra time and money in your situation, and could even sell the house and move somewhere that the market isn't so shitty, invest, etc.
Thank you. You can't measure wealth in 'millions 'of dollars/euro/etc. It's how comfortable and free your life is, do you have a roof over your head and no worries about loosing it, can you travel, can you afford quality food and clothing, can you afford to have a family? Basically, when you have no survival fears.
Most people are frugal and buy based on price at a Grocery Store, that is Normal.
Sell it buy a cheap rural house and retire. That's what i'd do.
This is a preemptive response to those viewers appalled by this video’s blatant attack on capitalism.
So you believe billionaires don’t get rich by exploiting others? You believe there haven’t been antitrust, anticompetitive and anti monopoly lawsuits against Amazon, Walmart, Microsoft, etc when they abused their power and the system to increase their wealth? You believe employees and smaller businesses aren’t impacted by these practices? You believe being anti union is better for blue collar workers? You believe that the current wage disparity ratio of 500:1 compared to 30:1 forty years ago isn’t a significant factor in a weakened middle class? You believe not increasing the federal minimum wage of $7.25 since 2009 is because government holds too much power?
Any responses by non millionaires will be interpreted as trickle down believers, class traitors and economic enablers.
Until everyone can meet all of their basic needs for food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, and mental health care, then no one should be a billionaire. No one becomes that wealthy without the work of other human beings, which is why I believe that the most fair way to prevent extreme wealth hoarding is to require that workers are paid fairly. Fair pay isn't just what you can get away with, fair pay is what value that individual is actually creating for you by their work. If you make $10 million, then some percentage of that profit belongs to the person who mopped the floors. They did an essential job that made it possible for your financial windfall to happen.
That's never going to happen. To many leaches out there that refuse to work.
But billionaires created that job slot.
You are too ideal. What’s considered fair? Can you systematically distribute pay based on fair contribution when people’s definition of fair is not the same, esp variance in different industry/culture, etc.
Clearly, what you are describing exist in an utopian state
"Until everyone can meet all of their basic needs for food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, and mental health care, then no one should be a billionaire."
So in essence, you want successful people to be robbed to help useless people? You essentially want full on communism. (the fallacy of positive rights) This is what you call "fair"? That's the insanity of wanting equity instead of equality. This bad idea has backfired every single time it has been tried thought out history. it makes EVERYONE poorer, especially the poorest.
"No one becomes that wealthy without the work of other human beings"
So what? Those other human beings choose to collaborate with them because they pay the best, making them richer than they would otherwise be, just the same. Is that bad? Are you OK?
"...which is why I believe that the most fair way to prevent extreme wealth hoarding is to require that workers are paid fairly."
Workers are not helpless voiceless little babies. They are adult human beings, perfectly capable of negotiating terms if they seek employment. But you want to use the FORCE and THEFT of government to bring about your utopia eh? Again, this is pure communist garbage thinking and economic illiteracy. not to mention immoral, unethical and absolutely evil.
This is a totally fair point, the only catch: the one mopping the floor must get not just a share of the profit, but also a share of the risk, liability, consequences of failure, and countless other bitter things, business founders have to deal with. In fact, there are a lot of jobs like this, called equity, revenue share, or co-ownership.
The problem is, that the people in general are unwilling to share those things, they only want to to reap benefits.
Great video: the reactionary comments to your video essay are also highly instructive and thought-provoking.
Unfortunately one of the reasons we have billionaires is because of all the bootlick.. i mean temporarily embarrassed millionaires trying to get crumbs thrown their way.
People are dying because they can’t afford healthcare or even food. Many are forced to work two jobs just to survive, while others have so much money they’re launching rockets or themselves into space. The money used for these luxuries could easily fund universal healthcare and fair wages. The world we live in is becoming increasingly unequal, and the extreme concentration of global wealth in the hands of a few will lead us to disaster, as it has done for many civilizations before us.
In the past, the wealthy paid taxes as high as 95-99%, especially in the 1960s and 70s. Despite these high taxes, they remained incredibly rich. However, through lobbying, they managed to convince politicians to give them tax breaks, under the false promise that this wealth would benefit ordinary citizens. What we are witnessing now is the opposite: social achievements are being reduced or dismantled because we are told we "can’t afford" them-while the rich keep getting richer.
This system pushes the working class into deeper insecurity. Fear of losing their jobs and being unable to support their families keeps people silent and compliant, instead of standing up against this injustice. But this situation only lasts until people rebel, often with severe overreactions that can set the world ablaze.
There is only one way to prevent this: the rich must pay higher taxes again, and their wealth must be capped at a reasonable level. The tax revenue should be used to ensure all citizens can live safe and healthy lives. Until then, I’ll keep my pitchfork sharp and ready.
@@MrTwixraider Hate to tell yah. If you're American. That military ain't cheap. Billionaires have existed since forever and they didn't pay 99% tax.
@@MrTwixraider someone’s regurgitation Reich here. Got any ideas of your own? The billionaires left, maybe go visit Monaco and have words with them if you are upset about it.
Allow Billionaires, but tax them so highly it becomes impossible to amass such wealth.
Or have socialism and make everyone rich and tax the companies
I used to not care about economics, because I was happy not pursuing money. But then the little money i had was worth a lot less due to massive inflation. The cause of this inflation? Wealth inequality. Now I care.
No, the cause of that inflation is mostly because of irresponsible governments. 2008? Banks should have been allowed to fall. It would have sucked hard in the short term, but would have put some brakes on the untenable economy and wouldn't have let incompetent banks just keep operating as they always had. 2020? Quarantine on a global scale was pure insanity and created more inequality than the great depression. The true problems stared when we move to fiat currency and government could just print money with nothing to back it up, and they they started doing that to manage their ever growing debt that they accrued through irresponsible spending.
People forget that Rome became a dictatorship because the richest people in the republic decided to bring their armies home.
We didn’t forget, we glorify it now. It’s disgusting.
Not really.
Hard truth is that most people who defend millonaire and billonaires existence is because they hope to become one some day, and they rather have that societal chance to do so, even though most of them will never be, than to live a more balanced life but being limited to reach that level of wealth, power and opulence.
True, Some People can't comprehend wealth.
I think they defend them because of the percieved glorification and justification of their position, and how much influence they have over their opinions already. But in the case of millionaires, the current policy gives them an easier chance at becoming a billionaire.
I wander if bilionares also own media outlits and create products that put these ideas in peoples minds ever since they were yound and thru out their whole life...
Nah surely its natrual and not an outcome that those in power wanted to create... RIGHTTTT?????
It's ok to have rich people, but ultra rich is just disgusting. If we could be fine with just rich, poverty wouldn't be such an issue. Money is limited, if its sitting somewhere just so a guy can feel superior, it's not on the hands of middle and lower class.
I do not understand why this channel was not in my YT suggestions: I watch similar content... Nevertheless, better late than never! Amazingly done sir, I instantly subscribed!
The amount of wealth worship in these comments is concerning.
Just remember you're closer to being homeless than being a billionaire.
It’s true that I am closer to being homeless than to being a billionaire, but I also haven't created anything or made investments that would increase my wealth, so I don't expect to become rich when I haven’t done anything to make myself rich. Just because I am closer to being homeless than to being a billionaire doesn’t mean I should lose sight of what is fair. If someone does something that makes them deserving of being a billionaire, then they should be. Are you going to say that if a person invents the cure for cancer, they deserve to remain in the middle class because of limits on how much they can earn? I would consider that person deserving of becoming a billionaire.
@@nebuloso6527 I see your point but your also not correct because no person will ever cure cancer - it would be a team or more realistically multiple perhaps hundreds of teams combining their effort and standing on the back of all the research that has taken place before them to have that breakthrough. Which is the same for basically everything, the person who makes money off it or claims the fame is usually the one who marketed it not the inventor/inventors... with a few exceptions.
Im not saying there isn't value in that by any means its often great to make something available to the masses, but there is very little that's a solo effort , and typically the person who invented a thing of value gets nothing. They either have to hand it to the company they work for or it goes unused until their patents run out and others can exploit it without paying them,.
@PatrickButterly I got to disagree. There have been a few examples of people who claimed to have cured cancer. One example is of a Veterinarian who figured out a cure fir cancer in Dogs. A pharmaceutical company acctuly was going to buy the cure. The Veterinarian committed suicide and his documents disappeared.
So hey so it possible for someone to figure out a cure for cancer.
@@matthewvandyk7773 and you are in your rights to disagree.... Do you have any reference to this or is it like a urban legend? I highly doubt the accuracy of it as cancer is not a single thing you can cure... There are many cancers and what cures one wouldn't cure others.
Insane random possibilities can happen I won't deny that. Breakthroughs have come at times from unexpected places but it's usually the exception and not the rule. When it dose happen it's usually the result of someone who has that knowledge to back them noticing an unusual effect that isn't in line with the expectations... Or occasionally a totally random chance like when they discovered rat poison tasted sweet
Amazing!
Keep that mentality and I pray to God you always stay close to being a Loser than anything else in your life.
😂😂
There are no ethical billionaires
Name one non ethical billionaire
@@simonbomgaars7867 Musk is a really good start. And if you are right winger, then Soros would be your go-to guy. Anyone with the money and will to spend so much enforcing their own world-view on others who don't want it is unethical.
i really like the ethical limit, it shouldn’t be glorified to be ultra rich, much better characteristics to glorify someone for
Humans wearing rags defending the sleeping dragon on top of a mountain of gold thinking they can be the dragon one day.
is it anyway related to nick bostrom?
not billionaires should be illegal, STOCK MARKET MUST BE ILLEGAL.
profit maximizing destroys every quality product, wages and wealth.
think about!
The power that money buys is a HUGE problem. And these are not good humans.
You are a brokies saying like that you are not billionaire so your just jealous
@@shyamsunder3358 do you have one intelligent thing to say ?
@shyamsunder3358 why defend the ultra rich?
No, I don't think a million dollars are too much to ask. It would literally buy me a house, the furniture and new appliances, maybe even a big garden on property large enough to practice my hobby on and just enough to feed my family with on self grown food. THAT is not too much to ask for. I wouldn't even be quitting work, but instead just scaling down the hours spend there. I would really like to be with my family more.
That said. i REALLY like the idea of an upper limit. 10 Mill seems large enough to do just about anything with and wouldn't be a threat to human continuation.
as a swedish person, this video is very swedish. I cannot tell if that is a positive or negative thing, since i've only ever lived in sweden, but i agree with the message. Good vid
I clicked on the video, heard the Swedish accent and thought "makes sense".
Greetings from Tyskland
I am soon to be 40 years old. Despite having worked 80+ a week hours most of my life, I live in an apartment with roommates and have 150 square feet of personal space. I dont really own anything and am just paying for food and rent. I buy bottled water kuz there is constant problems with the water (I live in a major city, Montreal, Canada). I don't go out.
Somehow, according to bill gates, I am richer than a medieval peasant, who has a house, a wife and kids??
I feel for you brother Canadian! My take to this is move out of Montreal if you ca. You might be happier. Just saying...
At least you have healthcare. In America you can do the same and have no healthcare or if you do a huge deductible that no one in your position can afford. Along with this fighting medical bills to be sure the right code is put in so that it counts toward your deductible. On top of that you need to make sure the doctor is in your network or it doesn't count. And if you don't have a doctor in your area in your network well too bad.
What you described I call slavery to people I know. They say "well he can choose to move somewhere else, he can choose a better job, he can educated himself".
Then I reply.... "A choice of things from people that hold all the power isn't a choice. It is a choice of what they CHOOSE to give you to give the illusion of freedom while keeping you a slave".
Noam Chomsky said a similar phrase. "We have choices of things they let us choose from, but not real choices." I don't care for cars. I would rather have public transportation. I don't have that choice. Even from the cars I get to choose from things are in the car I don't want. I don't need seat warmers, or some fancy 360 camera, or some fancy audio system. Then on top of this the thing I do want which is simple software is $1000. Like I remember the last car we bought new. To upgrade to a media system that accepted bluetooth was over $1000..... just for bluetooth because... I had to take the premium speakers with it. "I don't want the speakers, I just want bluetooth".... "sorry sir they come together".
Yea you are in a crappy spot but IMO Canada is better than here for safety nets.
If you lose your job here you can still keep your employer insurance..... but you pay for it.
Unemployment is like $1200 a month..... which barely covers the insurance and definitely doesn't cover rent.
If you are disabled you have to get a lawyer to prove you are disabled because they cut the staff at social security in half.
@@lighttheworldonfire3364 You speak of things you know nothing about.
Canada has a TERRIBLE health care system. No doctors, months if not years of wait time. Going to the emergency? bleeding out? you can wait 14+ hours at the ER!!
Did a blood test last year. Had to go to a private clinic since all the public places were booked. Kept checking online for several months just to see. There are so few public places and never any room. But *WAIT* a minute... why am I paying the HIGHET TAXES IN NORTH AMERICA (I live in Quebec).... and then STILL pay for my healthcare at public clinics? This is the dirty secret. Canada's hidden shame. Best healthcare in north America? Nope, its the place we pay twice. Once in taxes and then the service is not there and must go public.
Threw my back out last year. Couldn't work for 6 months. Never saw any money from this "disability" you speak of.
Social safety net? I went on unemployment couple years back. It lasts like 3-4 months and is like 50% of your salary or something. It's really not much...
And that's if you can get on it. They use every dirty trick in the book to try to exclude you. You have to go many times to the unemployment office and just through many hoops. I worked a seasonal job, you'd think they would just give you unemployment since it's seasonal. Nope. You need to be looking for a job and fill many other criteria just to get the measely amounts.
Canada is a scam. It has a good image but trust me, USA is better. There are no jobs here, high taxes and HORRIBLE public services. Why are we paying for this? SO the rulers can line their pockets as they advertise to the world the safety net, healthcare and wonderful utopia here... why? to lure in immigrants. Canada is flooding in modern slaves. I would know, Im one of them. I want to go back to my country and get out of this hell hole, this trap. I also thought how good it sounded, but trust me, it's not what you think. Its all lies. Living here is expensive and there is no safety net. Its a nightmare. They just want cheap labor.
I mean, think about it. This country has created "MAID". Medical Assistance for Dying. aka euthanasia. Why? to kill off the sick, the old, the poor, the disabled. I hear stories ppl applying for this to escape poverty. There is your "safety net" right there. You really want to live in a country like this? The roads, the infrastructure. its HORRIBLE and falling apart. Potholes, sinkholes everywhere. Google the massive water main that broke this year in Montreal. Look at the flooding and damages.
Where are our taxes going? Property taxes, income taxes, school taxes, permits, etc... So many taxes and unfathamable amounts!!
The schools are run down, the buildings are run down. I swear, Canada is a third worl country. But no one talks about any of this (you can find some hints online of you really search)
This is the reality here.
I had similar problem. It was better as I have had just one job and lived in a room until 40. But I have decided to make a radical change thanks to my 'skills'. I could work remotely. Moved out of the expensive area and moved in a 'deprived' area. Had enough savings to buy a house. Now I'm repairing the house, have three rooms and enough to pay a mortgage.
This isn't a joke comment. All I'm saying is - F the beautiful city, move out and find a job(if needed) outside of the area, in much smaller and cheaper place. Your mental health will improve. Good luck mate, fingers crossed for you and everyone else that need to take this path.
@@sandermez3856>makes rant about wait times in Canada
you realise the US also has wait times right? wait times that are longer than the OCED average?
There is a very important factor ignored in this video (and by many people). The amount of money is only part of the equation, less than 50% even. The other part is what time it took you to gather said amount. Right now, on average, people waste 2/3 of their lives working. THIS is unacceptable. We have enough capabilities in the world now to drastically lower this.
Maybe the problem lies not with the "2/3" part but with the "waste" part? Being stuck on the job that you hate or that no longer can sustain you and your family due to some changes outside of your control - that is unacceptable. The time and effort spent on the job that exists only as some rich man's whim is definitely wasted. But a productive work for the benefit of many can never be wasted. It's normal (and sometimes even beneficial) for people to work as long as they wish and can, but today we don't have robust systems for people to keep their health on the job (some of us are simply unable to work after certain number of years spent in hazardous or unhealthy work environment) and keep their dignity not being thrown away or deemed useless after a certain age. Unfortunately, these systems - the systems of meaningful, fruitful and respectable labour - are impossible under capitalism.
@@AlexKoskin Any work that only benefits other people is a waste. Ideally you want the work to benefit you AND others, but if that's not the case it should benefit you.
But a lot of works today benefit no one. Maybe your employer.
Work is not a bad word. Work and the act of working is serving other people and benefiting society. Both in the present and future.
@@oredaze From Cleaning toilets to building Space ships to being an Accountant benefits Society. What work only benefits the Employer? The only reason the Employer has a business is because someone out there needs the Expertise to be done by someone else. Your Employer has merely created a System by which other people can find that help and exchange their money for that help. Anyone can be an Employer for anything.
@@TheAsianRepublican The amount of work that is useful to society (in any meaningful way) far dwarfs the amount of jobs and the time each day people spend on the jobs. For example most people spend hours doing nothing on the job.
I’ve seen people say “the country is a business” and I fundamentally disagree with that. Treating a country like a business is not ideal. We should treat it like a household, is it profitable to buy a child a toy? No, it’s just a nice thing to do it just makes life better for the child. If the child is taking advantage of systems in place, punish the child. If the house was worried about profits they’d likely send the child to the mines, take 99% of the child’s pay, spend it on McDonald’s, make it mandatory to always work never have a day off, not allow the child anything to reduce costs to maximize profit.
A country must balance the means and the ends, a country should give bandages to the kids who fall, candy to the kids who do great in school, but not require them to study 23 hours a day.
A business’s goal is to reduce costs and maximize profit, nothing else, so the ideal for a country of it where a business would be to pass laws that force people to act with those goals. What keeps this in check from becoming extreme is morals (no duh) and laws that represent those morals (also no duh) so if we have those laws then the country isn’t a business but a household. Every action doesn’t need to be for monetary gain, but that also shouldn’t stop the household from having a budget.
In a few words.
Tax the rich.
They already are taxed at higher rates
@@anthonynosikenot as they once were. In America the top earners once paid 90 percent. America flourished despite that.
@@wehonews ok so they should be taxed more? I mean, idk if thats a solution because with businesses, they have tax loopholes. I dont think government needs more money tbh
@@anthonynosike How do you think roads, bridges, etc are made? How do you think social security, medicare and a lot of society is funded? We could have free post-secondary learning and medicare-for-all. The fact is that the rich pay very little (sometimes nothing at all) since most of their wealth is made from capital gains and not from income, which is easier to evade taxes, because the rich lobbied it to be that way.
@@kevin_andrews735 I do think there's problem with the system but I dont think more spending is the answer. America spends way more on alot of stuff compared to europe for example, but they are very much more advanced than us. We first have to better utilize the money we do have and become more efficient.
Fun fact. When Putin became the president of Russia, we had 0-5 billionaires. And he promised to deal with inequality and things like that. Now we have 125 billionaires and the gap between rich and poor is much bigger
With great power comes great responsibility, and a single person shouldn't be allowed to bare it.
It is not possible to illegalize billionaire, but it is possible in a democratic country to limit the ways billionaires exploit people and systems. The problem i fx USA, it is the richest that make the laws.
Billionaire is relative too. You can make people poorer and 100M becomes the new 1B. So yah making it illegal to exploit people is real solutions but it won’t happen unless citizens off a few uber rich people. That’s how most fundamental changes occur. We’ve gotten soft as a people.
lmao how are people in the comments saying billionaires aren’t in-fact rich or aren’t hoarding money, since they store all of their wealth in stocks and assets?
first of all, liquidating stocks or assets is not a problem for them if they really wanted to have the cash on hand.
secondly, do you not understand that both stocks and assets also generate revenue in the form of tenants/asset appreciation and dividends/stock growth? revenue that is most likely used to buy even more stocks and assets to generate even more revenue and further increase the wealth gap..
please do some critical thinking and stop licking the boot
Those assets are also a glitch in the system. You can take out 0% loans to live off of, or.... buy more assets with.
How are Rich hoarding money? Hoarding money is keeping it locked up. The examples you give are the wealthy investing in corporations which create opportunities for people to work. They drive the stock market which increase the average persons wealth thru their 401k. They own homes, apartments so people have places to live who don’t want to own property or don’t have enough at a certain stage in their lives to buy. You are misguided.
@@joshpxrez thank you
@@joshpxrez The cash is still only paper.....
The assets are even the primary problem here. It's what makes them not only billionaires but the owning class.
here to see poor capitalists defending billionaires
Enjoy the show.
A real circus 🎪🤡
😅 I feel you completely 🙌
I'm a free-market capitalist, I'm not poor and I will defend billionaires. I'm quite proud that someone find knowledge entertaining, that's actually a good sign.
@@bardbar
I mean, there is a problem with lobbying and making politics or being beyond the law
But if we take all the beautiful animations out and shorten this video
All he says is billionairs have so huge money, and we should do something about it
Its Just a video to please the audience that already believes this idea of maximum amount of money to be good
There are so many problems with that
Not discussed
"if you wanted to change the world, would you rather be the president of usa or the ceo of goldman sachs?"
I think it's clear where the real power lies. Nice video
president of usa
In Brazil 6 billionaires (families) have the equivalent of half our population, Brazil has 217 million people… yeah 💀
This is actually genious on so many levels! With such laws, billionaires would push for higher taxes.
Because if I, as a billionaire, need to pay education, healthcare, transport, etc, with the only million I allowed to own, that would be bad for me. I rather pay then through taxes - with everyone else - get them for "free", and keep the $1m for other things!
I bet they'd even get creative in ways that would BENEFIT all.
Like "hey, omg I am getting close to the illegal limit, maybe instead of pocketing all those gains from my company, I should keep them in the company and spend more on improving facilties".
Or maybe "As other rich investors are not as aggressive and short-sighted for ROI now, I can make ambitious, rational long-term plans, even if my company will not be as profitable for some short period of time now, to find a cure for cancer, or make meaningful breakthroughs in fusion reactors".
Or I can just do nothing if I don't get more money, and the growth will stop. Or I will use my relatives as proxies etc.
@enotbegemot1240 billionaires more often than not, doesn't keep on doing something to earn even more money.
It is about ego. And if you are no longer allowed to accumulate grotesque amounts of wealth, you'll get creative in the way you manifest and feed your ego.
Maybe it is by doing something good for society - or, as you suggest - use family as proxies. But you'd need 1000 family members to accumulate 1 billion dollars, and then you'd need to be able to control, manipulate even, them all to control your money - because if you fight with your son or mom or whoever proxy you have - legally they can tell you to f*** off, because it's their money.
And don't get me wrong, it still isn't a perfect solution. The billionaire may keep the money within his companies instead, the real proxies. But again, companies' value will rise with accumulated wealth of said companies too, and so the billionaire may not own too much above the limit, because that would reflect in his stock-ownership.
100 Million schould be the limit. But the rich will never agree. Because what they actually want is power/feed their ego.
No, everybody should start off with 50 million when they turn 18. To spend however they want, but with no way to earn any more. If you wasted all of it, you're on your own.
No one would ever need to gamble, if we had a livable wage. Money is like law, keeps honest people at bay while the dishonest shit on everything we know.
@@draconicrain7609 This could also apply to the business world as well. Think about it: if we had a basic needs guarantee, we wouldn't need to bail out corporations to preserve jobs because the people would have what the job would provide them anyway. The only risk here would be the business itself which wouldn't be a huge loss if a person's livelihood is decoupled from that. Sure, a person might have to scale back a bit since they're temporarily out of work but there would be the peace of mind knowing that there's a social safety net and the means to rebuild. Believe it or not, a conservative talking point in providing socialized services such as healthcare and education means that the agencies can pay less since the overall costs of living are lower. That may not be my reasoning since providing education and healthcare for example are simply the right thing to do and have many more benefits down the road such as having an educated population or preventing medical complications. The whole thing is dishonest because "this is how the world works, it's unfair, and there isn't anything you can do about it" is disingenuous.
The reason why a "Livable" wage is not possible is because its subjective. Meaning the definition of Livable is different for everyone. If a 30 yr old Mother of 3 children work at a McDonalds with an 18 yr old doing the same exact job, the $10 per hour for the 18 yr old is a livable wage while not for the 30 yr old. Yet why should the 18 yr old and and 30 yr old be paid differently for their time and labor if they are doing the same exact job.
@@TheAsianRepublican i would not say subjective, more, relative, but i see your point.
@@TheAsianRepublican You misunderstand the meaning of liveable wage.
@@draconicrain7609 this idea of “forcing” a livable wage by government decree is a fairy tale.
If you raid the minimum within 2 years the prices of everything go up and the minimum wage worker is right back where they were before. Of course they are being paid “more”…and so the government gets more money in income taxes. So the government is the only one who wins.
Also…nobody here in Michigan works for minimum wage anymore unless they are literalky too lazy to switch job. Both of my kids STARTED at $11 an hour. McDonald’s is advertising $15 if you will work the late shift.
So the wages rose WITHOUT the need to raise the minimum wages. And they will continue to go up from here.
If you say “they need to rise faster though” then your problem is that you want a fairy tale to be true. You want low value work to “magically” be worth more to those who are paying for it.
But that’s not how the world works. I pay my lawn guy $50 to cut my lawn. It takes him 20 minutes on thag super-fast riding lawnmower. I am NOT paying my lawn guy $100 to do so. If the government wrote a law saying $100 was the minimum for a yard to be mowed…I would break down and buy a super-fast mower and go back to cutting my lawn myself.
A 20 to 30 minute lawn cut is just not worth more than $50. And everything else is the same. There’s a max value to having someone work a drive thru window. Above that…it will not be paid. It’s just not worth that much. This may bother you. But that just means the truth bothers you. But the truth doesn’t care about our feelings. Math doesn’t care.
Elon went from 214 billion to being the first person to hit 400 billion as of 3 months after this video came out.
Whoa an Hour ago
Hallo Other Person
Thanks to his hard work lol 🤡
One word: Greed
It is crazy. In USA, you can comfortably retire on 3 to 5 million. 10 million will make you rich. Anything above that is not needed.
$3-5 million in the USA makes you rich - normal people cannot possibly hope to save and invest enough money to accumulate even $3 million.
@@jt1559 they do in Australia. The average retiree retires with $2.5M.
How do they do it? Instead of “Social Security” the government requires their employer to deduct 11% of their earning and send it into a safe, low interest index fund. They have no choice. From their first job to their last they are FORCED to invest their money. Even minimum wage workers.
Compound interest takes care of the rest. It’s basically impossible NOT to become a multi-millionaire if you invest 10% or more of your income over the course of your life.
But the Democrats won’t allow us to switch from the failing “social security” system to the Australian style “private investment accounts” model.
Because the don’t WANT people to get rich. They want them to remain poor. Because “the poor” are the voting block that keeps them in power. They want as many poor people as possible so they can have as many voters as possible that they can lie to and say “We’re gonna rob the rich and use the money to give you all these goodies” while they then go off and do whatever their super-rich mega-donors tell them to do once they are voted in.
Shouldn't necessarily be illegal, but I think it would be fair to impose heavy taxes on wealth over a certain limit. So for example you'd pay 5% wealth tax of everything you own over 1 billion dollar. Easy!
Hey bud. Did you know the ultra rich routinely dodge taxes all together? "Easy" except the amount they pay will increase 5% from 0 to 0!
You don't have to make it illegal, just tax them until they are no longer billionaires.
How would you tax them?
Ah, so you don't understand. You're basically asking for the government to nationalize any company of a certain size, by force.
Genius has arrived. (Dude never hear of fiscal paradise) Do you know how to solve world's hunger as well, maybe by distributing bread to all hungry people?
6:50 "Extreme wealth threatens democracy and capitalism"
Man, extreme wealth IS an natural result of capitalism
The point still stands. Capitalism taken to the extreme undermines itself (just like all unrestrained socio-political systems). Even if it seems impossible now, it will collapse, just like the Roman Empire did - and probably in a painful way.
Am I the only one who doesn't get why people with over 100 million net worth want to earn more?
It's because our society doesn't tell us that we should ever stop, it tells us that having more money is good, period end of story.
Well net worth is often time not accurate to how much you personally have to spend.
The sadest thing is that there are people in the comments who support this 1% even if they are not one of em . My only hope is that they are bots or payed individuals and do that as a job
The problem is more complex, as very rich people decide how whole nations will evolve. Power and money go hand in hand, so if you want a more fair world you need to limit both up to a certain extent. No, capitalism has it merits, so don't throw it out of the window but a limit, at least an inheritance limit should be installed. In my personal humble opinion all people should get a tax credit (an amount at 0%) until they have reached a certain standard of living, this to help the poor to increase their wealth. Above that level you are taxed a default rate. Above a billion (might change on inflation) you should be taxed 95%. Inheritance should follow the same rules, but at 100% taxed above one billion.
The limit should be 30% more than the lowest paid employee so if your lowest paid is making $20 an hour then you should be making $26 an everyone else in between. Realistically economically speaking that'll cause prices to be more stable worldwide, and keep prices down.
Most countries tax income. That is strange because most countries think that labour should be promoted. We should skip the taxes on labour, keep a universal VAT, and introduce a wealth tax. If you spend all your money, you contribute by VAT. If you save, you pay a capital tax. A capital tax can be modest up to $100.000, a bit higher to $ 500.000, high above $1.000.000,-
If you see capital as a claim on the shared pool of resources we have available, the capitalist way is to demand a return on investment. So we should demand for example 10% return (capital tax) on any capital bigger than $ 1.000.000,-. Expand this to not only people but to companies as well (modified, because other scales will be necessary). That prevents stacking of ownership in strange constructions. (increases transparency) And it can be used to limit the size of companies.
The capital tax needs to be significantly higher than the VAT though. VAT hits people with low income _much_ harder than people with a high income, and you need to correct for that.
@@Wolf-ln1ml My thinking: not everyone is the same, and needs the same. If people need more and are willing to work for it, fine by me. My problem is that people get more than they need (that is when their capital grows). So if that grows, they pay, next to the VAT that everyone is paying, a capital tax, every year.
The ultra rich do not become rich from their labour (although they have fine salaries) but from their capital. So they are not taxed upon high salaries and they have advisors who are searching full time for loopholes in tax laws so they have to pay even less. And that will be solved by a capital tax.
From my point of view, everyone decides what they need and their labour is not taxed. Work hard, earn a lot. If you are happy with a small car? Good for you, you don't need to work so hard. But if you get more than you need, pay society a return on the resources they made available for you and that you didn't need. And that return is of course payable each year you have those resources. Until you need them and you pay VAT.
@@LarsvanZon Oh, I'm fully behind taxing the hell out of... well, what amounts to hoarders of wealth. And yep, no deductions for investing anything - afterall, that increases their capital, which is exactly what needs to be taxed.
When raising my boys I taught them that we had enough; not rich, nor poor. But we were doing fine. What is my metric? Our needs (Maslow's hierarchy, and all that) were generally satisfied and I never had to consult the bank account if I wanted a small splurge on a meal, a new tool for the workshop, or a gift for someone special. That is rich enough for me.
I pity your children for growing up realizing their own father valued the well being of strangers more than the well being of his family. You are a failure as a father.
@johnnynick9115 you missed the point completely. I valued my time with them more than time spent earning more money. They will tell you I am an excellent father, thank you very much.
@@johnnynick9115imagine running just behind money, not spending time with your family and loved ones. And what's the problem if he thinks for his community?
Homo sapiens as species is going through a growth crisis is because we have forgotten pur history, have believed that we need more to sustain. More what? As the capitalist propaganda serves, it's always more things, money, and never care for the other. Shame on you for shaming a man who taught his kids values of a human being, and humanity. You PoS, may you serve in the shackles of capitalism.
@@ailo4x4You are commenting on a video advocating for the confiscation of the property of wealthy people. Your comment was an endorsement of that ideology. You find it acceptable to confiscate the property of others once their level of wealth exceeds what YOU deem sufficient.
Teaching your children that it is moral to use FORCE to take the property of others is NOT the actions of a good father.
@@johnnynick9115 No, sorry, you really are projecting your pov and missing my point with my sons entirely. I said nothing about confiscating anybodies property. I'm only teaching them that it is more important that they learn that getting more wealth FOR THEMSELVES is not an important goal. It is far more important to be happy with with what you need , work hard to acquire it, and, most importantly, share it with those you love. And that your time is the most important asset you control. But wealth for its own sake is not an important goal. I'm not saying be lazy or happy with being poor. I've done reasonably well with my life and by all standards live an upper middle class life. But I see no need, or personal value, in striving to have more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime. You can't tell me Elon is any happier than I am. Yes, he has his own space program. Good for him. But it won't be standing at his bedside when he is old and comfort him. It won't give back the hours he could have spent with loved ones. And, most important, he can't take it with. He and I will both end up exactly the same, stardust an nothing more.
Let's start with these rich people pay their fair share (a.k.a. just paying your taxes instead of avoid them) of taxes. And yes, I think higher incomes should pay higher taxes.
billionaires and millionaires are celebrated for some reason but they are stealing from you
Its nice to hear countries like Australia are taking elon's rise and influence seriously and starting to look at political donations as a very big problem..
So many people in the comments so quick to protect rich people who don’t care about them 😹 but also sad! I have been saying this for ages!
ok, give up everything you have to someone else then.
@@Maxშემიწყალე watch a video boy, it's not about giving up things you need
@@krsnt2137 Who determines what another needs? You don't need a computer, or a phone. Give those up.
Yeah, societies typically are indoctrinated into the values of the rich, so people look up to to them, aspire to be like them (which is never achievable) and protect them to their own detriment, so society has done a 'good job' in that aspect for some of the commenters. They are like self-hating slaves thinking they deserve their position. Pathetic and sad.
Billionaires shouldn’t be illegal the material basis for their existence should be abolished
There was an H&M ad right before the video. I laughed.
You give me $15m and nobody will ever see or hear from me again. I’ll buy a $200k house, a decent new car, pay off any debt, and anything leftover will be used for basic living expenses and a vacation somewhere I haven’t been once or twice a year. And I’ll probably still die 40 years from now with 10m left. Having billions and still wanting more is an actual brain disease
Even if you wanted a really fancy $2M house and lived a luxurious lifestyle where you spent $10K every month you would "only" spend 8 million over a 50 year period.
Heck let's get completely ridiculous, a $10M house, $4M country residence, $6M car collection, $15M yacht, and a lavish lifestyle spending $25K every month. Still "only" 50 million.
It will take 125 of the first type of person to spend 1 billion over a 50 year period.
It will take 20 of the second type of person to spend 1 billion over a 50 year period, and that's living a more expensive lifestyle than anyone should ever reasonably want.
1 billion is a completely ridiculous amount of money to want, let alone 100 billion. I know that these billions aren't as simple as all being money that can be spent, but still.
Some millionair or other explained that at some point it just becomes a game, it's not about money at some point. Personally I think playing games that result in thousands starving to death every day is disgusting. Sadly too few people think like this or want to change things badly enough. Obscene wealth does have a stigma as far as I'm concerned though, I wouldn't talk to a billionair even if being coerced to do so.
@@mugogrog seeing other people's Life as a game Is kinda the definition of a brain desease tho 😂
@@TM450FI Psychopathy I think it's called :p
I strongly agree. A billion dollars is an absurd amount of money. No one should have anywhere near that much. Especially not when the people who have that much pretty much always weaponize it against the people who produced that wealth.
We need to stop calling it a billion. Call it what it is ONE THOUSAND MILLION. Most people don't understand that this Swedish guy is worth 20 thousand million dollars. Muskrat is worth TWO Hundred thousand million dollars. Most people are numerically illiterate and think a billionaire is just slightly more wealthy than a millionaire
@@seanposkea Yes. At one number per second, 24 hours a day:
Counting to a million takes 11 days, 13 hours, 46 minutes, and 40 seconds.
Counting to a billion takes 31 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes and 40 seconds.
Basically, the difference between a million and a billion is the difference between 11 days and 32 years.
I think the vast majority of people arguing against this concept and defending billionaires are stricken with the fantasy of becoming rich themselves someday. The number one propaganda tactic of the elite; the idea that you too could become one of them. I ask them: would you really rather have more than everyone else than live in a world where everyone has enough?
Depends, but wealth is Independent
Why would you want the state to control all companies in a country????
People have been pulled out of poverty "...thanks to capitalism...?" Um...no. Industrialization, yes. But not capitalism. Capitalists have been trying to propagate that narrative for decades. Taking an infographic and attempting to confuse correlation with causation is absurd, not to mention the questionability of the source. The wealthy have worked tirelessly to demonstrate their essentiality. They use their vast resources to manipulate the systems they exist within to serve their interests. I remember how they would make Adam Smith sound like the father and supporter of Capitalism, deregulation, and free markets...until I actually read him. They depend on the ignorance of the masses. That's why they work toward destroying the educational system. The less educated are more malleable.
Studies show that wealth has a psychological effect on people not unlike other addictions, chemical and habitual. It's time we treated it as the disease it is rather than praising, encouraging and promoting it the way we do.
What can we do? Organize. Read Jane McAlevey. I think bottom-up unions will be essential to pulling us out from under wealth's thumb. But it needs to be done carefully. We've been taught to seek a savior. The attempt to destroy any reliance on any concepts such as political parties, governments or systems, are there to confuse, nothing more. And governments are nothing more than institutional mechanisms that act as power brokers for those who wield the resources to manipulate it. The only way to outdo the wealthy is to pool ours. The masses are the source of the wealth. Pooled, they would overwhelm any available to labor. And wealth knows this. Which is why they've amassed great industries around sewing disunity among them. Union busting is an industry unto itself.
But that wasn't enough. They've invested in many branches to manipulate the populace into valuing individualism and to despise any system that encourages unity. And this is something that philosophers, as referenced in the video, have known for a long time. I expect tracking the progression of civilizations from beginning to end will show this pattern of assembly, growth, rapid expansion, and inevitable collapse as wealth turns its citizens from social animals to hyper individuals as that last stage is anathema to a society. Anthropologists have found that dead civilizations show a marked depletion of resources. These are lessons that need to be learned if we're ever going to stop the cycle of civilization extinction.
So, no; I don't think there should be such thing as such extremely stratified wealth. It's not just that it doesn't serve society; it works to destroy it. Not as an intent, but as an unavoidable byproduct. Wealth accumulation should be treated as the disease it is.
Just some thoughts.
While I disagree with some of this I can get behind the general sentiment and to anyone reading: you should unionise!
@@Insert_generic_username If you have an argument I am interested in hearing it. It's part of the reason I post such comments. I have thoughts and want them to be correct. If I'm mistaken, I'm interested in how. Thank you.
@@Insert_generic_username Oh, and I wouldn't just encourage unionizing. There are top-down unions which are more akin to corporate models that actually end up serving corporations, or themselves. I would encourage organizing, and learning about the difference between top-down models and bottom-up models that encourage democracy and active participation in understanding the nature of institutions and both the benefits and dangers they represent. It's a community building approach.
When I have more than I need, I start getting the people I know and love gifts. I take into account what they need and help them get it. As such, I could always do with more money. Because if I can get money where others can't, I can help them.
How billionaires look at worn down streets and think nothing of them is a wonder to me. We need a video on that. Even when I had no money I was trying to figure out ways to help. An inspirational person I know was making ceramic chairs so old people could sit someone and actually get to walk around their town. One person with no money did more than people like Elon Musk have done in years. I think people like that should be at the steering wheel, not billionaires.