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.
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.
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
It is really refreshing to see a comment about Sophia I have worked with her also. her approach consistently keeps you ahead of the trend, She's the best i'll say..
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.
@@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.)
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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 🙄
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.
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!
@@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
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!
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 .
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?????
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.
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.
In the UK taxing wealth is still considered a political impossibility and an extremist demand. No matter how modest the proposal, no matter how glaring the need. Brilliant production!
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 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!
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.
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.
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
@@johnwick6831 Not really, I'm from a middle-class family & proud. Looking at your comment history, I see nothing but hate and ragebait. I think if you went outside and spent time with nature a bit, maybe get some ice cream, you would feel better.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for taking the time doing the video. Makes me wonder when the rest of 99.9%, who thinks that by limiting billionaires their life will be affected badly, wake up. This is why they are billionaires, we let them become one.
"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
@@andysierra1618 the video has nothing to do with communism, if you absolutely stretch it it only advocates for redistribution of wealth (tho not really) which is just liberal in general, it lacks all the fundamental principles of communism like abolition of propierty, control of the means of production by the people and abolition of classes. if you genuely think this is communist propaganda you are an idiot or just have no idea of what actualy is communism and shoudnt be throwing accusations in the first place, if you think its a bad video or that the solution/problem is bad thats ok but if your argument boils down to "sounds like communism" then you shoud know what communism is in the first place and i wont take you seriously otherwise
@@andysierra1618 As yes because "Solicialism" is when government does any stuff. And when Government does lots of important stuff that doesn't involve killing people with weapons, its "Communism". Because that's totally how it works... right...? Right...?
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.
The game we play today is decided by the rich. It is exactly as if the winners have kept a game of Monopoly going long after that the owning of property has already been decided
This happened when my brother and our friend played monopoly. Since you could trade properties at any time, what they did was they agreed not to charge each other when they landed on the other’s property. They also did some nasty shenanigans and by the end, the two collectively owned every property. It was an oligarchy. Arguably, oligarchies are more effective at stamping out new competitors than monopolies because they are easier to establish.
Ready for a *board flip* Moment and game change? I know I am. If you are, check out Zeitgeist Movement, films, books, Revolution Now podcast and One Small Town initiative for Ubuntu Contributionism. Consider something different, but still rooted in community cooperation, which is healthy for us when we get to do it.
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
Enough money is easy defined: Not worrying about: Shelter, Food and Health And a bit to spend on hobbies and small luxuries like idk... about 50% of your living cost as extra pocket money or so
I don't see how anyone _needs_ more than 100K to live. _Maybe_ 200K if you want to give someone room to have extra wealth. I just don't see how anything more than that is necessary, not unless I'm missing something like house/mortgage payments being 50k/yr.
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.
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.
@@DrMwenya you’re kidding, right? While sure, wealth is just democratized power in paper form, we have a pretty good bead on where power is in societies-even closed ones. It’s hard to hide that sort of thing in our modern world.
@@brandonhicks7549it depends. For example in finland, tax information is publicly available. Im not saying its impossible to know but most people outside of political circles dont know who murdoch even is.
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
@@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.
Enough is when you have coverd basic needs. To have always more and more is a addiction. You can figure out abou consequences when you look on drug addicted. System is wrong and it's poisoning our brains, while capitalists enjoying our exploitation quietly.
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.
This comment is too subtle for most who don't know history. But well played. Nice economy you have here... it would be a shame if something happened to it...
Capitalism was always going to concentrate wealth in this way. It's why regulations and legislation adopted to prevent wealth concentration was doomed to fail. Capitalism demands that everything and everyone has a price. The solution is to implement democracy in the one place where it can do the most good. In the workplace.
No, Bram - the ONLY place democracy works is in the marketplace. You can vote with your wallet. If you don't like someone - don't buy their stuff. If you think Jeff Bezos is ripping you off - don't use his company. Dislike Musk -don't buy a Tesla. Hate Gates - buy Apple products instead. You don't put people in jail and threaten to kill them because they earn more money than you think they deserve - you just shop elsewhere.... if you're rational.
I grew up in Yugoslavia, which had something called Self-Managed Socialism. I think you understand how that experiment ended, but just a few examples: a cleaning lady sat on the company's self-management council and decided on the production process, and her voice had the same weight as the engineer's. My father worked in a theater, and that same proverbial cleaning lady co-decided on the program of the national theater. Completely incompetent people were deciding on things for which they had absolutely no competence. What was clear to everyone at the end of the experiment was the correlation between human ambition and human incompetence, and how in such societies this abomination flourishes. There is no social order that has not been tried in human history. Many experiments are still in progress, but what is objectively clear is the fact that capitalism combined with democracy is the most successful and just system we have tried so far.
@@ljuboizsiska5448 okay, so your implementation of it didn't go so well. Has to still be better than having a handful of psychopaths deciding for all of us.
I don’t think people are jealous of the super rich… they just understand the threat of one person with almost infinite resources at their fingertips…. All it would take is one bad day to turn the world to chaos…
why people have infinite resources? Realy easy couse some people are stupid enought to sell them. If you sell your 20 hectars land to buy fancy car, then you are the one who make stupid decision and you can be sure there is another thousands of fools who do exactly the same to get some initial benefits. my Buddy reacently bought piece of land. He paid quite big price and it takes him a decade to start gaining profit from mining, but he made this investment and same time someone get nice bulk of money. What he does with money, may buys new car, gambles on casino, or throw yearlong partys, or just make bad investments on stock markets. concentration of wealth happens only when alot of people make bad decisions and some people dont make bad decisions
@@theregularfolks1723 you dont go cure symptoms but illness. Lack of education of understanding a value. You basically say people tend to do stupid decisions and if you are not one of those who make stupid decisions should be punished. Another factor I didn't mention before is the idea of initary government where government belives it has right to control resources and people. If government just leave people alone then there would not even a situation where power would consetrate too much. Good example is Landowners. Landowners who just want to keep they land are actually forced to work for government, produce goods to sell and pay taxes. This creates a situation when people who wish to avoid uncertainty need to monetazy they property and by that acquiring more assets to protect they core assets. Example is Britis nobility. Originally they weren't very wealthy. But as state started to industrialize and tax they property they turned they land to industry and by that claimed vast amount of resources. Reason for that were need to keep they ancestral land. SO if government forces you to pay 70million a land tax on year then you need to have billions to be sure that any negative economic situation don't cause you to lose your property . Same is also in lower scale If you have property then you need to be sure its future is protected. If government would remove taxes then most people would not see any need to acquire excessive wealth. problem is modern system where government belives is has right to direct and exploit human resources toward they vision of country and use people as assets not as persons with own goals. Better yet. If person is to orich, you can tell you can be independent, not part of country, not obligated to contribute and have no right to have access to infrastructure. But reality is it doesn't matter poor or rich government seeks to exploit you and if you don't want to lose what you have then you need to increase the amount you have til point when you are comfortable to lose some. If person wants to retire at 40 course he has worked hard made right decisions and have been frugal then he should be allowed . But government will see it as lost resource he would tell you are capable of working another 35 years and we want to exploit you so we tax you and you never feel comfortable it creates situation when people strive towards to be comfortable. And not leave things to change.
@asjaosaline5987 you are assuming that those billionaires got there because of their smartness. Whereas it's true that smart decisions lead you to obtain an amount of wealth considerably higher than the average, the accumulation of an obscenely high amount of capital is more the result of privileged position, political collusion and mere luck. The user was not arguing that those billionaires should be punished, he was simply saying that a great danger may rise from those who may exploit their wealth for their own advantage and gain even more power at the expenses of other people ( both smart and non-smart)
@@lorenzogumier7646 People every day exploit wealth to they advantage and its normal. What is not normal is that politicans use power to accumulate wealth and give grants to buddys and family by creating new millionairs and billionairs. Most Billionairs are thouse who have made smart decisions and worked generation, handful at the very top are thouse who used power and influence to get they riches. There is small number of Billionars. But there is alot of multi millionairs who earned they wealth by friends in government and they gains are much more and they are also more agressive to gain power and benefits. So problem is system that allows to lobby and gain power by using wealth or connections. In ancient rome only wealthy people were allowed to be in senat, so they had no intrest in corruption to earn petty dollars. Right now politicans are cheap and it is issue of morality not wealth. Billionairs can buy whole parliament, becose parliament is ready to sell themself. Obama is only one of exsample where he didnt own even a house, but now is multimillionair. So better fix morality and loopholes to buy power with money instead of trying to steal people wealth using taxes and other methods.
Instead of looking to take money from others it’s the system itself that needs to change in order for this to not be possible. 1. No interest charged 2. Anti Monopoly laws strengthened 3. Shares to employees and not just to founders and directors 4. Increase taxes of businesses and reduce to employees 5. No residential real estate used as investment
Money is finite If a person has a lot The other has less Millions are dying of hunger and a couple of Billionaires just bought their third private jet You don't need that much money You are not using it You just want more
The money should be taken through the estate tax. You can keep the wealth that YOU create in your lifetime, but passing an obscene amount of wealth to your children who did nothing to earn it is insanity.
The Sereissima Republic of Venice used to have a limit: the richest person (noble one) is allowed to have 10 times the wealth of the poorest (noble). It has sense to boost society's economy.
(On the topic of the conclusion) I always thought i needed all these fancy things to do what I like and be comfortable. The other day I grabbed an unfinished notebook and a half-eater pencil and started drawing, and now I am happier than I thought I would be without incrementing my money. I still have all my debts and no financial problem has been solved in my life but the realization I don't need so much money as I thought I needed was quite refreshing and is making me hopeful for myself
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.
I used to have long debates with my best friend about this, and he always said the lack of limits is what drives the greatest innovation and keeps capitalism competitive, and I strongly disagreed. I'm no debate champion, so I found it tough to back up my stance other than on intuition about the human condition, income inequality and rising trends in homelessness. My best friend and I parted ways after he got deep into the toxic 'manosphere', and we couldn't hangout and just have fun anymore. Hope he can see the bigger picture as time goes on. It was hard to walk away. On to better things and greater understanding though, for us at least. Cheers.
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.
The policy didn't work, the reason the rich stayed rich was because they left. The maximum income tax rate for the UK not to do that is 40%. The reduction in social 'achievements' is because the same money is having to be spread more thinly. 17% of the country is retired, the money has to come from somewhere.
@@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.
Billionaires or even multi millionaires should not touch politics. Thats something that can change the entire world, and if in wrong hands, can be devastating-
I think the max wealth should be ONE BILLION. Millionairs can be exist- you can even get it by wining the lottery. It is a sign of success, but billionaires are WAY beyond excess.
For me enough is to have a flat without getting in debt for 30 years. Currently I have minus money and I will not tolerate suggestions that I have a Rockefeller mindset
@@calysagora3615 because I am an engineer with 2 masters degrees in Poland so I can't afford a house? Do you know how expensive a house is for a 30 year old right now?
What is the number that you think is okay to steal all of someone's wealth? At the $50M mark? Who gets to decided that? Someone who has billions or someone who has $400 in a poor country? If you are american, you are richer than most of the world. Should your money be limited to what you have now?
@@keplersiguineau regarding wealth inequality and whether we should give less economically developed nations money, yes. The only reason the west is rich is unfair trade agreements and the US overthrowing any and all regimes that don't cooperate. We have a moral duty to allow everyone a chance at life, instead of enslaved child laborers working cocoa plants or mineral mines without protection
@@zugetzuzu You can say that the rich being rich is partially because of unfair trade agreements. The primary reason? Heck no. The west is rich primarily due to the companies they have built. Apple sells their products world wide. It exceeds a valuation of $1 trillion. Google is also similar in valuation. China however blocks Google’s services in their country. Unfair trade agreement. What is “a chance at life” the slaves you are talking about have a “chance at life”. Define that phrase please.
Maybe it is because we are not jealous assholes that believe in theft. The chances of any of us becoming a billionaire is slim to none, some might dream about it, but I think they know the odds. Nonetheless, if they want to try for it let them they might make millions and create something very useful to the world.
@@keplersiguineau I can't believe you just unironically wrote "slaves have a chance of life" in a sentence. My God... They OBVIOUSLY mean a *decent* life, not that they are getting literally killed (which work illnesses and lack of rest, present in slavery, in fact, do). How can you bend and twist yourself backwards to lick the boots of the richest people on Earth so much, that you get to completely ignore human wellbeing and dignity in all your economic calculations? Do all your "moral" analysis of economic systems and dynamics sum up to "if I would technically be allowed to be unfathomably, literally tens of thousands of times richer than 99.99% of all people on the planet, a lot of whom are literally dying of hunger and thirst that I could easily help alleviate but can choose not to, then it's good."?
error? it’s the system working as intended. the end result of state sponsored capitalism is the continued concentration of wealth into the hands of the few.
Insider trading is illegal. Government waste is usually a sign of corruption, which is also illegal. Unfortunately, government is not going to investigate itself. The only solution is to reduce the power of government altogether.
@@friendofvinnie Elon also gave us EVs, 90% discount on space payloads, global cell towers in space, solar and battery grid support. All because we didn’t “cap” him when he sold PayPal.
@@rickagfoster He didn't invent EVs or introduce them to the market. He's polluting space. Other people came up with battery grids. None of the companies he's known for were really built by him, he just bought them, or invested in them (like Paypal).
@@nathanlevesque7812 CEOs don't invent, they hire and manage. Let's just say without Elon I wouldn't be driving two EVs. You can take that to the bank. Grovel all you like, but envy and hate are not virtues.
@rickagfoster - Actually public institutions like research institutions connected to schools the governments are the ones responsible for the technology’s businesses make money selling. Their main goal isn’t to make money but to solve a problem. This is why billionaires have no interest in solving problems if it isn’t going to make money even if people and the planet suffers.
I would expect at least a quick mention on the fact that wealth in the form of capital (which is the type that billionaires hold) does not simply concentrate out of thin air, it needs to be extracted from work, resources and social relations. So the fact that a bunch of people are ridiculously wealthy is not independent from billions of people being in extreme poverty. Both Hickel and Chang, who were mentioned in the video, have done some excellent work justifying and explaining this relation. Also, in case you have not already done so, I cannot recommend enough another book on limitarianism, it's called "Limits" by Giorgos Kallis. One difference in the with Robeyns is the way it approaches limits. Instead of looking for some objective or natural limit to anything, from wealth to global temperature rise, Kallis focuses on the concept of autonomy stemming from the work of Castoriades (among others) to suggest that free societies are the ones that are able to decide for themselves through participatory democratic processes the limits within which their freedom may flourish.
As I understand it, there is also the issue that many companies are CEO-owned “small monarchies” versus more democratic worker co-ops where the employees own the company. That is even before considering the layer of any public trading of company shares, which can speed up the money available to equip a company, but what is owed investors must be carefully clarified: more hierarchical companies often lay off employees to add what would have been their wages to reported investment profits, whereas at a more democratically beholden company, more explanation may be owed if you vote to fire your co-worker to claim what would have been their paycheck.
whether someone is worth 10,100 or 500 mil I struggle to see that it changes how they live, excluding ego and bling.... the political influence sometimes weilded by the rich/big business is a cancer on democracy.
The worst part about democracy is the one that is chosen are those who has the most votes regardless of whether they are competent or not. The problem is not the system itself but the ones who's controlling the system. If people's living standards and education are way better, then maybe democracy could actually work.
Next: Why a career in Politics should bind that person to that job for a lifetime with no option to earn more money in any other way. If you want to serve your people, you do it right or do your own thing, but not both.
@@jensonee Personally hating someone is not a justification for them not being worth 200 billion. Its what Musk has done to revolutionize society with Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink. You speak as if he is hitler, while he probably is simply someone that disagrees with you on Everyday Topics. Speaking of Musk, his company SpaceX will be launching StarShip tomorrow 7am CST for the 5th time, and catching the Booster for reuse. He started the company from scratch in 2002, revolutionizing Space flight. What companies thought to be impossible. You need more than 1 billion to to start a company like SpaceX today. Not to mention Musk's impact on Civilization at large.
I disagree with the message that people who believes that 1M is enough are stuck in a Rockefeller mindset. To me, this is way, way more linked to the economic pressure caused by rich people than to this mentality. There is an apartment selling in front of my flat for 750k. An apartment. Not a house. Not the whole duplex. Not a brand new condo. Just a "freshly renovated" apartment in a building from the 1920. There is another one one block over, just the same... And another one... and the whole road I live on, in one of the worse place to live in my city, literally surrounded by a highway, are all just the same. One of them sold instantly. In a market like this, for me to afford housing without renting, I _need_ 1M. Not necessarily in my bank account, but that's how much money I would be worth if I'd bought that apartment at credit. It's no surprise that people think they'd need that much to be comfortable. If limits start to appear, though, you can be sure that number will change.
Its currency, not holdency. When water does not flow, that the situation when it gets spoiled (even swamps have some water that goes into them and out).
@@drwalka10 "Denmark will tax livestock farmers for the greenhouse gases emitted by their cows, sheep and pigs from 2030." what do you think that this action was caused by? It's the agenda of WEF, the club of the richest people around the world. Soon other countries will follow Denmark by taking actions like that, which will cause an increase in the prices of real meat and milk, reduction in real meat and milk production. Then, some rich people, who were probably joining WEF meetings regularly, will introduce their artificial meat products.
@@erhanfindik254 Hey, you wanted global free markets. You must have because you keep voting for them. That this would mean that rich people get more power was quite obvious. Also, a pollution tax makes sense, the pollution is part of the production process and you need to pay for that or you're stealing.
@@erhanfindik254 As a Dane, let me tell you that this has f**k all to do with rich people. What's driving that taxation is the political decision to try and reduce Denmark's carbon footprint. So the idea is that by taxing the emission of greenhouse gases, you create a monetary incentive to find a way to reduce said output. You have a bunch of political parties wanting to prevent petrol fueled cars from entering Copenhagen (though EU law is probably preventing that at the moment). Old wood fueled heaters are going to get banned in a few years, so people that have such things, will either have to scrap or replace them. And so on. There is no conspiracy of rich people sitting in a dark room cackling, while they plan to turn meat into a scarce ressource, so they can make more money. Nor are they making covert payments to changing politicians etc., on a global scale, in order to bring about their evil schemes. Stop being a paranoid idiot.
In the UK I think there should be a wealth tax. Say 2% of net wealth over £1M must be paid every year. No delaying payment like CGT, it's a bill due at the end of the year. No sneaky loopholes, no hiding offshore accounts. Everything you own in the pot, companies, property, investments, trusts, pensions etc. Only about 1 in 20 would have to pay anything, and they could all afford it. If you're retired and live in a mansion with little income either downsize or do equity release.
If they're retired and live in a mansion, it's easy enough to exempt one (1) residential property from the wealth tax as the person's primary home. This would also protect people who own large areas of rare and endangered wildlife reserve that has a high nominal market value but isn't yielding an income the way farmland would do - so long as their house is part of that reserve. If not, they probably need to donate the reserve to some trust to look after in perpetuity. But aside from the asset tax, we also need a top marginal income tax rate of 100%. There is a point beyond which nobody needs more money and we need to recognise that in law.
@@Shini1984 you could be selling eBay homemade jewellery mate, your nothing special if you're here making jibes at me. For all I know you're 45 and still running out of your bedroom. In your mums house.
One lesson I've learnt from billionaires is to always put your money to work, and diversifying your investments. I'm planning to invest about $30k of my savings in stocks this year, and I hope I make profits.
You are right. The best approach I feel is to diversify investments- by spreading investments across different asset classes like bonds, real estate, and international stocks, they can reduce the impact of a market meltdown.
That makes sense. I’ve been using a financial market expert for two years now and I own a six-figure diversified portfolio from investing in stocks. I want to diversify more this year, though.
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Vivian Jean Wilhelm” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
Thank you so much for your helpful tip! I was able to verify the person and book a call session with her. She seems very proficient and I'm really grateful for your guidance
The reason why I set $1m is because houses cost almost that much. If they did not, then I'd secede to less. A lack of housing is one of the biggest problems affecting the West, and it baffles me that the West parades it's successes and yet fails to achieve this most basic need to its people. What are we working for if all our efforts make life worse?
They have to make houses as expensive as it takes about 1 lifetime to pay off. That way you have to work in a job for your whole life to ensure you have shelter. This puts your money in their pockets via tax and ensures you work for them, not yourself. Look up the old English idea of the idle poor Vs the working poor and see what our 'betters' considered idle for them and idle for us.
@@KingSteen well sure, but if it's in reference to the concept of "enough", then my estimate is based on current house prices and not whatever it would be predicated on the average net worth of the population over one lifetime, which would be infinity if the cost is adjusted to worth.
I am with Gary Stevenson, the trader, that we should implement wealth tax. In Canada, a new wealth tax was introduced , capital gains inclusion rate was raised from 50 to 66.66 and almost everyone was against it.
Who are you to say that it not the rich job to take care of the poor it nice if they do people can spend their money on what ever they want your rich hating
I don't think wealth limits should be absolutes. They should be relative. Plato's "no one should own more than 4 times what the poorest own" is a perfect example. Because then, those who want more wealth can get it, but in order to get it they have to drag everyone else up with them.
@@fordprefect5967 it would stagnate at the bottom. If people have no motive to earn money no innovation will be made and this would cause the country to be poor because it has no exports therefore no importing power due to the decline in value of its currency
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.
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.
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
It is really refreshing to see a comment about Sophia I have worked with her also. her approach consistently keeps you ahead of the trend, She's the best i'll say..
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.
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
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
@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.
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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
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!
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 .
No one should have enough money to buy a country.
Why?
@@enotbegemot1240 did you watch the video??
@@officallyjak The issue is that there's a difference between watching and understanding. Too many people nowadays are utterly media illiterate.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
$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.
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.
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?????
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.
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
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.
14:25 He who knows he has enough is rich
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?
In the UK taxing wealth is still considered a political impossibility and an extremist demand. No matter how modest the proposal, no matter how glaring the need.
Brilliant production!
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
😂😂
This is now my favourite video on RUclips.
And I'm guessing you are poor?
@@johnwick6831 Not really, I'm from a middle-class family & proud. Looking at your comment history, I see nothing but hate and ragebait. I think if you went outside and spent time with nature a bit, maybe get some ice cream, you would feel better.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With great power comes great responsibility, and a single person shouldn't be allowed to bare it.
I love people getting closer to realizing the benefits of socialism
This channel is so underrated - looking forward to when you blow up and become huge!
Thanks for taking the time doing the video. Makes me wonder when the rest of 99.9%, who thinks that by limiting billionaires their life will be affected badly, wake up. This is why they are billionaires, we let them become one.
Billionaires are the opium of the masses.
"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
There are no ethical billionaires
My new litmus test is seeing if someone calls this video communist propaganda, thanks for that lmao
It is
@@andysierra1618 the video has nothing to do with communism, if you absolutely stretch it it only advocates for redistribution of wealth (tho not really) which is just liberal in general, it lacks all the fundamental principles of communism like abolition of propierty, control of the means of production by the people and abolition of classes. if you genuely think this is communist propaganda you are an idiot or just have no idea of what actualy is communism and shoudnt be throwing accusations in the first place, if you think its a bad video or that the solution/problem is bad thats ok but if your argument boils down to "sounds like communism" then you shoud know what communism is in the first place and i wont take you seriously otherwise
No it’s not 💀
@@andysierra1618
As yes because "Solicialism" is when government does any stuff.
And when Government does lots of important stuff that doesn't involve killing people with weapons, its "Communism".
Because that's totally how it works... right...? Right...?
Communists would agree with the 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".
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.
The game we play today is decided by the rich. It is exactly as if the winners have kept a game of Monopoly going long after that the owning of property has already been decided
This happened when my brother and our friend played monopoly. Since you could trade properties at any time, what they did was they agreed not to charge each other when they landed on the other’s property. They also did some nasty shenanigans and by the end, the two collectively owned every property. It was an oligarchy. Arguably, oligarchies are more effective at stamping out new competitors than monopolies because they are easier to establish.
Ready for a *board flip* Moment and game change? I know I am. If you are, check out Zeitgeist Movement, films, books, Revolution Now podcast and One Small Town initiative for Ubuntu Contributionism. Consider something different, but still rooted in community cooperation, which is healthy for us when we get to do it.
It’s been going on here in the U.S. since the 70s when the Powell Memo went out outlining a slow drip strategy for corporate rule
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
Enough money is easy defined:
Not worrying about: Shelter, Food and Health
And a bit to spend on hobbies and small luxuries like idk... about 50% of your living cost as extra pocket money or so
I don't see how anyone _needs_ more than 100K to live. _Maybe_ 200K if you want to give someone room to have extra wealth. I just don't see how anything more than that is necessary, not unless I'm missing something like house/mortgage payments being 50k/yr.
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.
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.
These aren't the richest. They are just the poster boys. The real rich list will never be known.
@@DrMwenya you’re kidding, right?
While sure, wealth is just democratized power in paper form, we have a pretty good bead on where power is in societies-even closed ones. It’s hard to hide that sort of thing in our modern world.
@@brandonhicks7549it depends. For example in finland, tax information is publicly available. Im not saying its impossible to know but most people outside of political circles dont know who murdoch even is.
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
I have a better idea, seize the means of production! Working people's of the world, unite!
Good luck with the humanoids :p
@@ohkee Do androids dream of electric sheep?
No! There are the means of production then.
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.
Enough is when you have coverd basic needs. To have always more and more is a addiction. You can figure out abou consequences when you look on drug addicted. System is wrong and it's poisoning our brains, while capitalists enjoying our exploitation quietly.
What are the "basic needs"?
Beautifully made as always. Your insight and knowledge is unparalleled. Keep doing the good work.
Thank you very much, that's a very nice comment!
I agree! Thanks so much for another great video guys! ^__^ Don't let the conservative brainwashed sheep tear you down!
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!
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.
"Can a person become too rich, so rich that the wealth becomes a threat to society?"
Crassus: Don't be silly. Excuse me, your house is on fire...
This comment is too subtle for most who don't know history. But well played.
Nice economy you have here... it would be a shame if something happened to it...
@@grumpyoldman6503 Thank you! I'm glad someone appreciated it. 🙂
Capitalism was always going to concentrate wealth in this way. It's why regulations and legislation adopted to prevent wealth concentration was doomed to fail. Capitalism demands that everything and everyone has a price. The solution is to implement democracy in the one place where it can do the most good. In the workplace.
No, Bram - the ONLY place democracy works is in the marketplace. You can vote with your wallet. If you don't like someone - don't buy their stuff. If you think Jeff Bezos is ripping you off - don't use his company. Dislike Musk -don't buy a Tesla. Hate Gates - buy Apple products instead. You don't put people in jail and threaten to kill them because they earn more money than you think they deserve - you just shop elsewhere.... if you're rational.
I grew up in Yugoslavia, which had something called Self-Managed Socialism. I think you understand how that experiment ended, but just a few examples: a cleaning lady sat on the company's self-management council and decided on the production process, and her voice had the same weight as the engineer's. My father worked in a theater, and that same proverbial cleaning lady co-decided on the program of the national theater. Completely incompetent people were deciding on things for which they had absolutely no competence. What was clear to everyone at the end of the experiment was the correlation between human ambition and human incompetence, and how in such societies this abomination flourishes. There is no social order that has not been tried in human history. Many experiments are still in progress, but what is objectively clear is the fact that capitalism combined with democracy is the most successful and just system we have tried so far.
@@ljuboizsiska5448 okay, so your implementation of it didn't go so well. Has to still be better than having a handful of psychopaths deciding for all of us.
@@BramSLI1 I don't understand...is every entrepreneur and employer a psychopath? Explain who you mean when you say psychopath.
@@ljuboizsiska5448 go back to the topic of the video.
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.
I don’t think people are jealous of the super rich… they just understand the threat of one person with almost infinite resources at their fingertips…. All it would take is one bad day to turn the world to chaos…
why people have infinite resources? Realy easy couse some people are stupid enought to sell them. If you sell your 20 hectars land to buy fancy car, then you are the one who make stupid decision and you can be sure there is another thousands of fools who do exactly the same to get some initial benefits. my Buddy reacently bought piece of land. He paid quite big price and it takes him a decade to start gaining profit from mining, but he made this investment and same time someone get nice bulk of money. What he does with money, may buys new car, gambles on casino, or throw yearlong partys, or just make bad investments on stock markets. concentration of wealth happens only when alot of people make bad decisions and some people dont make bad decisions
@@asjaosaline5987 what does that have to do with the danger of the power these individuals wield??? nothing… not a damn thing
@@theregularfolks1723 you dont go cure symptoms but illness. Lack of education of understanding a value. You basically say people tend to do stupid decisions and if you are not one of those who make stupid decisions should be punished. Another factor I didn't mention before is the idea of initary government where government belives it has right to control resources and people. If government just leave people alone then there would not even a situation where power would consetrate too much.
Good example is Landowners. Landowners who just want to keep they land are actually forced to work for government, produce goods to sell and pay taxes. This creates a situation when people who wish to avoid uncertainty need to monetazy they property and by that acquiring more assets to protect they core assets. Example is Britis nobility. Originally they weren't very wealthy. But as state started to industrialize and tax they property they turned they land to industry and by that claimed vast amount of resources. Reason for that were need to keep they ancestral land. SO if government forces you to pay 70million a land tax on year then you need to have billions to be sure that any negative economic situation don't cause you to lose your property . Same is also in lower scale If you have property then you need to be sure its future is protected. If government would remove taxes then most people would not see any need to acquire excessive wealth. problem is modern system where government belives is has right to direct and exploit human resources toward they vision of country and use people as assets not as persons with own goals. Better yet. If person is to orich, you can tell you can be independent, not part of country, not obligated to contribute and have no right to have access to infrastructure. But reality is it doesn't matter poor or rich government seeks to exploit you and if you don't want to lose what you have then you need to increase the amount you have til point when you are comfortable to lose some. If person wants to retire at 40 course he has worked hard made right decisions and have been frugal then he should be allowed . But government will see it as lost resource he would tell you are capable of working another 35 years and we want to exploit you so we tax you and you never feel comfortable it creates situation when people strive towards to be comfortable. And not leave things to change.
@asjaosaline5987 you are assuming that those billionaires got there because of their smartness. Whereas it's true that smart decisions lead you to obtain an amount of wealth considerably higher than the average, the accumulation of an obscenely high amount of capital is more the result of privileged position, political collusion and mere luck. The user was not arguing that those billionaires should be punished, he was simply saying that a great danger may rise from those who may exploit their wealth for their own advantage and gain even more power at the expenses of other people ( both smart and non-smart)
@@lorenzogumier7646 People every day exploit wealth to they advantage and its normal. What is not normal is that politicans use power to accumulate wealth and give grants to buddys and family by creating new millionairs and billionairs. Most Billionairs are thouse who have made smart decisions and worked generation, handful at the very top are thouse who used power and influence to get they riches. There is small number of Billionars. But there is alot of multi millionairs who earned they wealth by friends in government and they gains are much more and they are also more agressive to gain power and benefits. So problem is system that allows to lobby and gain power by using wealth or connections. In ancient rome only wealthy people were allowed to be in senat, so they had no intrest in corruption to earn petty dollars. Right now politicans are cheap and it is issue of morality not wealth. Billionairs can buy whole parliament, becose parliament is ready to sell themself. Obama is only one of exsample where he didnt own even a house, but now is multimillionair. So better fix morality and loopholes to buy power with money instead of trying to steal people wealth using taxes and other methods.
Instead of looking to take money from others it’s the system itself that needs to change in order for this to not be possible.
1. No interest charged
2. Anti Monopoly laws strengthened
3. Shares to employees and not just to founders and directors
4. Increase taxes of businesses and reduce to employees
5. No residential real estate used as investment
Money is finite
If a person has a lot
The other has less
Millions are dying of hunger and a couple of Billionaires just bought their third private jet
You don't need that much money
You are not using it
You just want more
The money should be taken through the estate tax. You can keep the wealth that YOU create in your lifetime, but passing an obscene amount of wealth to your children who did nothing to earn it is insanity.
@@justamaninTN Yeah bro and gaining money from others peoples work??
Nah
You work
You earn
The Sereissima Republic of Venice used to have a limit: the richest person (noble one) is allowed to have 10 times the wealth of the poorest (noble). It has sense to boost society's economy.
Ciao! Vorrei chiederti gentilmente dove hai trovato questa informazione.
(On the topic of the conclusion) I always thought i needed all these fancy things to do what I like and be comfortable. The other day I grabbed an unfinished notebook and a half-eater pencil and started drawing, and now I am happier than I thought I would be without incrementing my money. I still have all my debts and no financial problem has been solved in my life but the realization I don't need so much money as I thought I needed was quite refreshing and is making me hopeful for myself
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.
Boy oh boy have I been looking for this subject everywhere. Watching now.
I used to have long debates with my best friend about this, and he always said the lack of limits is what drives the greatest innovation and keeps capitalism competitive, and I strongly disagreed. I'm no debate champion, so I found it tough to back up my stance other than on intuition about the human condition, income inequality and rising trends in homelessness. My best friend and I parted ways after he got deep into the toxic 'manosphere', and we couldn't hangout and just have fun anymore. Hope he can see the bigger picture as time goes on. It was hard to walk away. On to better things and greater understanding though, for us at least. Cheers.
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.
The policy didn't work, the reason the rich stayed rich was because they left. The maximum income tax rate for the UK not to do that is 40%. The reduction in social 'achievements' is because the same money is having to be spread more thinly. 17% of the country is retired, the money has to come from somewhere.
@@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.
Billionaires or even multi millionaires should not touch politics. Thats something that can change the entire world, and if in wrong hands, can be devastating-
Then there won't be any billionaires.
And that might just be a great thing. Don't you think.
I think the max wealth should be ONE BILLION. Millionairs can be exist- you can even get it by wining the lottery. It is a sign of success, but billionaires are WAY beyond excess.
It's a sign of privilege which is basically generational luck.
Max wealth 950 million.
No billionaires, their existence is a sign of society in decline
For me enough is to have a flat without getting in debt for 30 years. Currently I have minus money and I will not tolerate suggestions that I have a Rockefeller mindset
Why would you even want to live in a stacked concrete box?
@@calysagora3615 because I am an engineer with 2 masters degrees in Poland so I can't afford a house? Do you know how expensive a house is for a 30 year old right now?
Most people are against making billionaires illegal just because they live with the hope of becoming one.
What is the number that you think is okay to steal all of someone's wealth? At the $50M mark? Who gets to decided that? Someone who has billions or someone who has $400 in a poor country?
If you are american, you are richer than most of the world. Should your money be limited to what you have now?
@@keplersiguineau regarding wealth inequality and whether we should give less economically developed nations money, yes. The only reason the west is rich is unfair trade agreements and the US overthrowing any and all regimes that don't cooperate. We have a moral duty to allow everyone a chance at life, instead of enslaved child laborers working cocoa plants or mineral mines without protection
@@zugetzuzu
You can say that the rich being rich is partially because of unfair trade agreements. The primary reason? Heck no. The west is rich primarily due to the companies they have built.
Apple sells their products world wide. It exceeds a valuation of $1 trillion. Google is also similar in valuation. China however blocks Google’s services in their country. Unfair trade agreement.
What is “a chance at life” the slaves you are talking about have a “chance at life”. Define that phrase please.
Maybe it is because we are not jealous assholes that believe in theft. The chances of any of us becoming a billionaire is slim to none, some might dream about it, but I think they know the odds. Nonetheless, if they want to try for it let them they might make millions and create something very useful to the world.
@@keplersiguineau I can't believe you just unironically wrote "slaves have a chance of life" in a sentence. My God...
They OBVIOUSLY mean a *decent* life, not that they are getting literally killed (which work illnesses and lack of rest, present in slavery, in fact, do).
How can you bend and twist yourself backwards to lick the boots of the richest people on Earth so much, that you get to completely ignore human wellbeing and dignity in all your economic calculations? Do all your "moral" analysis of economic systems and dynamics sum up to "if I would technically be allowed to be unfathomably, literally tens of thousands of times richer than 99.99% of all people on the planet, a lot of whom are literally dying of hunger and thirst that I could easily help alleviate but can choose not to, then it's good."?
It's a system error, especially when you consider that many billionaires are extremely average people when evaluated from other perspectives
error? it’s the system working as intended. the end result of state sponsored capitalism is the continued concentration of wealth into the hands of the few.
@Thrillkilled I call it an error because the system is doing something that must be corrected.
If they are billioneres, they are not average.
Government waste and insider trading should be illegal
Insider trading is illegal. Government waste is usually a sign of corruption, which is also illegal. Unfortunately, government is not going to investigate itself. The only solution is to reduce the power of government altogether.
Elon musk spent 150 million dollars to fight his auto Workers unionization and then he shut it down and moved to Texas 😮
@@friendofvinnie Elon also gave us EVs, 90% discount on space payloads, global cell towers in space, solar and battery grid support. All because we didn’t “cap” him when he sold PayPal.
@@rickagfoster He didn't invent EVs or introduce them to the market. He's polluting space. Other people came up with battery grids. None of the companies he's known for were really built by him, he just bought them, or invested in them (like Paypal).
@@nathanlevesque7812 CEOs don't invent, they hire and manage. Let's just say without Elon I wouldn't be driving two EVs. You can take that to the bank. Grovel all you like, but envy and hate are not virtues.
@@rickagfosterccp does that for free
@rickagfoster - Actually public institutions like research institutions connected to schools the governments are the ones responsible for the technology’s businesses make money selling. Their main goal isn’t to make money but to solve a problem. This is why billionaires have no interest in solving problems if it isn’t going to make money even if people and the planet suffers.
I would expect at least a quick mention on the fact that wealth in the form of capital (which is the type that billionaires hold) does not simply concentrate out of thin air, it needs to be extracted from work, resources and social relations. So the fact that a bunch of people are ridiculously wealthy is not independent from billions of people being in extreme poverty. Both Hickel and Chang, who were mentioned in the video, have done some excellent work justifying and explaining this relation. Also, in case you have not already done so, I cannot recommend enough another book on limitarianism, it's called "Limits" by Giorgos Kallis. One difference in the with Robeyns is the way it approaches limits. Instead of looking for some objective or natural limit to anything, from wealth to global temperature rise, Kallis focuses on the concept of autonomy stemming from the work of Castoriades (among others) to suggest that free societies are the ones that are able to decide for themselves through participatory democratic processes the limits within which their freedom may flourish.
@@alexpazaitis always love a good book suggestion, thanks!
As I understand it, there is also the issue that many companies are CEO-owned “small monarchies” versus more democratic worker co-ops where the employees own the company.
That is even before considering the layer of any public trading of company shares, which can speed up the money available to equip a company, but what is owed investors must be carefully clarified: more hierarchical companies often lay off employees to add what would have been their wages to reported investment profits, whereas at a more democratically beholden company, more explanation may be owed if you vote to fire your co-worker to claim what would have been their paycheck.
Co-ops should've been the default option since a long time ago. A shame they are not more common everywhere.
whether someone is worth 10,100 or 500 mil I struggle to see that it changes how they live, excluding ego and bling.... the political influence sometimes weilded by the rich/big business is a cancer on democracy.
democracy is gay anyway
The worst part about democracy is the one that is chosen are those who has the most votes regardless of whether they are competent or not. The problem is not the system itself but the ones who's controlling the system. If people's living standards and education are way better, then maybe democracy could actually work.
@@akhsanarrazi7825 as the public become more educated the standard of elected people will rise.
Next: Why a career in Politics should bind that person to that job for a lifetime with no option to earn more money in any other way.
If you want to serve your people, you do it right or do your own thing, but not both.
Actually I prefer the Swiss format, where most politicians do other jobs. So they aren’t a class of their own, they are part of society.
there is no reason for anyone to have a billion dollars except greed. other than that it serves no purpose.
Why not? Make a case please.
@@lewisbosworth860 musk
@@jensonee That's not making a case. That's not really saying anything.
@@lewisbosworth860 if you actually understand what musk represents, it says it all.
@@jensonee Personally hating someone is not a justification for them not being worth 200 billion. Its what Musk has done to revolutionize society with Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink. You speak as if he is hitler, while he probably is simply someone that disagrees with you on Everyday Topics. Speaking of Musk, his company SpaceX will be launching StarShip tomorrow 7am CST for the 5th time, and catching the Booster for reuse. He started the company from scratch in 2002, revolutionizing Space flight. What companies thought to be impossible. You need more than 1 billion to to start a company like SpaceX today. Not to mention Musk's impact on Civilization at large.
I disagree with the message that people who believes that 1M is enough are stuck in a Rockefeller mindset. To me, this is way, way more linked to the economic pressure caused by rich people than to this mentality. There is an apartment selling in front of my flat for 750k. An apartment. Not a house. Not the whole duplex. Not a brand new condo. Just a "freshly renovated" apartment in a building from the 1920. There is another one one block over, just the same... And another one... and the whole road I live on, in one of the worse place to live in my city, literally surrounded by a highway, are all just the same.
One of them sold instantly.
In a market like this, for me to afford housing without renting, I _need_ 1M. Not necessarily in my bank account, but that's how much money I would be worth if I'd bought that apartment at credit. It's no surprise that people think they'd need that much to be comfortable. If limits start to appear, though, you can be sure that number will change.
Money works best when it's in circulation. Many billions sitting around just existing and not doing isn't great.
Like the empty mansions in Los Angeles. They just sit there functioning as collateral, housing no one.
Its currency, not holdency. When water does not flow, that the situation when it gets spoiled (even swamps have some water that goes into them and out).
They become above the law and can also decide what happens to the poor, e.g they can decide that poor should not eat meat to save the environment 😡😡😡
They have no such power
@@drwalka10 "Denmark will tax livestock farmers for the greenhouse gases emitted by their cows, sheep and pigs from 2030." what do you think that this action was caused by? It's the agenda of WEF, the club of the richest people around the world. Soon other countries will follow Denmark by taking actions like that, which will cause an increase in the prices of real meat and milk, reduction in real meat and milk production. Then, some rich people, who were probably joining WEF meetings regularly, will introduce their artificial meat products.
@@erhanfindik254 Hey, you wanted global free markets. You must have because you keep voting for them. That this would mean that rich people get more power was quite obvious.
Also, a pollution tax makes sense, the pollution is part of the production process and you need to pay for that or you're stealing.
@@erhanfindik254 As a Dane, let me tell you that this has f**k all to do with rich people. What's driving that taxation is the political decision to try and reduce Denmark's carbon footprint. So the idea is that by taxing the emission of greenhouse gases, you create a monetary incentive to find a way to reduce said output. You have a bunch of political parties wanting to prevent petrol fueled cars from entering Copenhagen (though EU law is probably preventing that at the moment). Old wood fueled heaters are going to get banned in a few years, so people that have such things, will either have to scrap or replace them. And so on. There is no conspiracy of rich people sitting in a dark room cackling, while they plan to turn meat into a scarce ressource, so they can make more money. Nor are they making covert payments to changing politicians etc., on a global scale, in order to bring about their evil schemes.
Stop being a paranoid idiot.
In the UK I think there should be a wealth tax. Say 2% of net wealth over £1M must be paid every year. No delaying payment like CGT, it's a bill due at the end of the year. No sneaky loopholes, no hiding offshore accounts. Everything you own in the pot, companies, property, investments, trusts, pensions etc.
Only about 1 in 20 would have to pay anything, and they could all afford it.
If you're retired and live in a mansion with little income either downsize or do equity release.
If they're retired and live in a mansion, it's easy enough to exempt one (1) residential property from the wealth tax as the person's primary home. This would also protect people who own large areas of rare and endangered wildlife reserve that has a high nominal market value but isn't yielding an income the way farmland would do - so long as their house is part of that reserve. If not, they probably need to donate the reserve to some trust to look after in perpetuity.
But aside from the asset tax, we also need a top marginal income tax rate of 100%. There is a point beyond which nobody needs more money and we need to recognise that in law.
What brilliant essay, with an insane production value and a mindshattering cinematic ending. Bravo.
95% of profit should go to the people making that money in the first place.
Oh I'm not an economist.
Not a business owner 😂
As a business owner, any money spent on anything other than profit is a loss, and it should be cut if possible 😂😂😂
@@Shini1984 you could be selling eBay homemade jewellery mate, your nothing special if you're here making jibes at me. For all I know you're 45 and still running out of your bedroom. In your mums house.
Companies used to have pensions for workers I call that an investment
Yes 95% should go to the Labor that generated the profit
Why? What risk has a worker taken to earn that profit?
No profit, no incentive to innovate and progress comes to a screaching halt
One lesson I've learnt from billionaires is to always put your money to work, and diversifying your investments. I'm planning to invest about $30k of my savings in stocks this year, and I hope I make profits.
You are right. The best approach I feel is to diversify investments- by spreading investments across different asset classes like bonds, real estate, and international stocks, they can reduce the impact of a market meltdown.
That makes sense. I’ve been using a financial market expert for two years now and I own a six-figure diversified portfolio from investing in stocks. I want to diversify more this year, though.
Your advisor must be really good. How I can get in touch? My retirement portfolio's decline is a concern, and I could use some guidance.
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Vivian Jean Wilhelm” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
Thank you so much for your helpful tip! I was able to verify the person and book a call session with her. She seems very proficient and I'm really grateful for your guidance
The reason why I set $1m is because houses cost almost that much. If they did not, then I'd secede to less. A lack of housing is one of the biggest problems affecting the West, and it baffles me that the West parades it's successes and yet fails to achieve this most basic need to its people. What are we working for if all our efforts make life worse?
They have to make houses as expensive as it takes about 1 lifetime to pay off. That way you have to work in a job for your whole life to ensure you have shelter. This puts your money in their pockets via tax and ensures you work for them, not yourself. Look up the old English idea of the idle poor Vs the working poor and see what our 'betters' considered idle for them and idle for us.
@@KingSteen well sure, but if it's in reference to the concept of "enough", then my estimate is based on current house prices and not whatever it would be predicated on the average net worth of the population over one lifetime, which would be infinity if the cost is adjusted to worth.
I am with Gary Stevenson, the trader, that we should implement wealth tax. In Canada, a new wealth tax was introduced , capital gains inclusion rate was raised from 50 to 66.66 and almost everyone was against it.
Greed has NO upper limit 😢
Super yachts shouldn't be a thing. No one needs one, they're just a statement.
Who are you to say that it not the rich job to take care of the poor it nice if they do people can spend their money on what ever they want your rich hating
When Billionaires can buy elections...
...I think it is past midnight. 😮
Great content, very interesting 👍
I don't think wealth limits should be absolutes. They should be relative. Plato's "no one should own more than 4 times what the poorest own" is a perfect example. Because then, those who want more wealth can get it, but in order to get it they have to drag everyone else up with them.
it's stupid there are people in debt
@@ExperimentalKanawith that system we wouldn't get into debt
@@JuanTorres-ji5jh that would cause everybody to spend and no one to produce if all you hard earned money is given to gamblers
@@ExperimentalKana Then the money would flow around, unlike stagnating like it does at the top. Trickle down economics generally don't work
@@fordprefect5967 it would stagnate at the bottom. If people have no motive to earn money no innovation will be made and this would cause the country to be poor because it has no exports therefore no importing power due to the decline in value of its currency