The socialist notion that wealth conglomerates and remains in the hands of a few is empirically false

  1. The fundamental mistake you are making with this post, is thinking that we believe wealth concentrates itself in the hands of the same few entities. We arent claiming that there will only be a few and the same people at the top. Rather that we see these concentrations get larger, despite one entity being replaced by another.

  2. The reality is this post isn't even making the point claimed. The turnover is in a tiny group. That 50% of people never even get 1 years windfall. Its just capitalist hand waiving and obfuscation of the fact that the system is a game that a tiny group gets to play. This is who built the system and who still maintains it. A tiny group of white men over 40.

  3. Wealth inequality naturally increases as a society becomes wealthier. Zero is always the starting point or floor, but as the ceiling gets higher, so does the gap to the floor. That’s not a problem since raising the ceiling also raises the overall level of wealth and standard of living for average folk in society.

  4. Marx's theory is that concentration will increase over time leading to monopoly. The data disproves that. Even if it was big players being replaced by other big players, that is the market working.

  5. As company evolves from small company to corporation, ownership of that company decentralizes. Bigger the company is, more spread and decentralised ownership of that company is.

  6. So your issue isn't that wealth changes, but that wealth remains separate between "classes" and you want classes to melt away magically.

  7. This is just not true. Almost no one of your socialist camp would agree with the idea that wealth is mostly earned and not inherited. You just moved the goal post to something else

  8. Nobody ever claimed a particular capitalist gets to stay in their position. They, too, are beholden to the ruthless rules of capitalism. Yes, the individual capitalists change.

  9. I don't have data on how many billionaires dropped to a median worth, nor do I think it matters. Perhaps you'd prefer this statistic which gets to the core of this idea that the working class is being oppressed by a capitalist class.

  10. 1% of the world owns 46% of the wealth, and increasing. 60% of the world has less income than needed for the basic needs of life. I don’t think the kids who have to drop out of school to help their families survive ought to take much comfort from the fact they there’s some turnover at the very top. Or the people who grew up sick because their communities are convenient dumping grounds for the capitalists’ toxins ought to rejoice because one corporation replaced another corporation with a slightly different mix of ownership on a list of richest businesses.

  11. Suppose you are in the global 1% - and the people elsewhere do need the money more than you, are you okay with it being redistributed from you to them by force?

  12. The socialist's point is not about stagnant income; rather, it is about the illegitimate political power which wealth brings to this group. Pointing out that individuals move around a bit within the ranks of the capitalist class does not undermine the broader point that capitalist class has both a shared set of political interests and the power conferred by their wealth to make those interests a reality.

  13. The wealth changes hands constantly within the same ruling class. The "hands of the few" is a generalization that the wealth stays up and out of the hands of the working class. Doesn't matter who, how many or what holds it at the end of the week. If this were not true than I wouldn't be struggling to pay my bills every goddam month.

  14. I think that saying that large companies not staying the largest companies is a terrible way to measure things. Let's look at Musk, He made his money on Paypal. Paypal isn't what it used to be, but he was able to take the money and create Tesla and Space X. Amazon, while they didn't change their name, went from making money selling books, which enabled Bezos to have the money to create today's Amazon to AWS.

  15. This is a lot of fancy statistics that you are twisting really hard into a narrative to disprove wealth inequality. The fact that you are trying to argue against this by sampling turnover in the top 400-500 wealthiest entities isn't really that compelling, you are talking about a very small and very arbitrary statistical selection. How many of these people started with less than $100k? How many of them fell back to median income/wealth after being in the top 400?

  16. Counting the "turnover rates" (what you show to be "stay in the top 400/500") doesn't actually mean anything. For starters, people could have dropped down because they stopped making income, or because they had a temporary increase in it.

  17. Cherry picking "studies" does not make them facts. Wealthy people are adept at hiding their wealth from the scrutiny of people who conduct studies. Look at the Panama Papers and the wealth management industry and you'll find people who have had their funds removed from view in trusts and overseas accounts that keep Forbes and the government from realizing the amount of wealth many people have. If you're a wealthy person that fails to get your family off the Forbes list in a generation or 2 you're a failure at managing your wealth.

  18. This strikes me as a cookie cutter post and your data doesn’t really prove or disprove what you think it does and at best presents socialists with information that socialists will find utterly meaningless.

  19. Not sure if you realize this but BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street do not predominately own these companies with their own capital. They are firms that invest capital on behalf of others. You (as a retail investor) can purchase a BlackRock ETF that invests in these businesses. That doesn't mean BlackRock owns them. It means you do. BlackRock just collects a fee from you and owns those assets on your behalf.

  20. What about wealth inequality data? There is literally hard data that wealth has been concentrating over the last 50 years. Are you just going to ignore that?

  21. To summarise what's happened every time that's been pointed out in this thread so far: OP will attempt to argue against it for about 4 posts then when it's painfully obvious he's wrong he'll start saying that it's actually a good thing.

  22. The mental gymnastics utilized to ensure discord continues in the lower classes while gaslighting them about the economic realities of our society continues weakening your position daily. Hirschl is a self-serving asshole.

  23. What an intelligent response. I know Marxists hate actual facts and data but you've taken it to the extreme.

  24. Good post. Socialists often like to think that statistical “snapshots” of an economy are all that is needed to prove their point. This is reminiscent of how Marxist theory neglects the time component of economic production.

  25. Capitalism creates wealth, perhaps proportionately more goes to the most productive, but everyone ends up winning. Wealth inequality isn't a productive point when discussing overall utility for everyone.

  26. Failed every time? The USSR under Stalin was the fastest growing economy in human history (read "From Farm to Factory")

  27. "Socialism" does not redistribute, Marxism-Leninism does. Libertarian Socialists do not advocate for state control of the workers.

  28. You're missing the part in Marxist theory that acknowledges competition between capitalists and the part where the importance of the criticism is based on class not the minutiae of people coming in and out of the ruling class.

  29. A significant number of those companies that are no longer in the F500 but were in 1955 either merged or were acquired by companies currently in the F500. M&A's have accelerated significant since 1955, highlighting that it is not turnover in the top corporations that is increasing, but concentration.

  30. The problem is that there is a king, not that he doesn't get replaced by a different king sometimes.

  31. Come on guys, why does this post have so few upvotes? 100 comments tho? Even if you disagree with it, it's clearly a high quality post that took a lot of work. Thanks for presenting this OP.

  32. 71% loose their status? Then where did they go? Where they homeless after they lost this status, or were the still fucking wealthy, just someone else was more wealthy? Wealth is not distributed properly.

  33. A slave system with social mobility is still a slave system. Social mobility does not justify capitalist exploitation. It’s literally that simple.

  34. You’re suggesting the industrial revolution would not have happened or would have somehow been handled more responsibly if another system was the predominant economic order in the West. There’s no reason to actually believe that, though.

  35. There is a massive difference between the top 1% of earners and the top .01%. Someone who makes in the bottom of the top 1% is much more financially similar to someone in the top 10%. Real wealth is in that .01%. Everyone else is just fighting for scraps.

  36. Man it must be super draining feeling so oppressed all the time. You wouldn't have lasted an hour if you were born 100 years ago.

  37. I am sorry to let you know that your statement is a fallacy. The data you show led you to a conclusion that ends up being wrong in the big picture.

  38. The fact that the capitalist class is a dynamic group with a high "turnover" doesn't discredit any of Marx's ideas. They nevertheless form a class with discrete class interests.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin