It is.
Ever hear of the French revolution, from which we got the saying "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich." That's the end result of staggering wealth inequality.

"American wealth inequality is staggering. "

???? Stated as if that is a bad thing.......

Getting soaked is a crock of BS. They're paying often times 20% effective tax rates.

And when income and wealth inequality is as bad as it is today, what you're pointing out points to how ridiculous the economic system is when almost half of Americans pay no federal income taxes and still see their effective income drop over the last four decades, while the rich have experienced steady income increases during that time.

IE, the inequality is so great, even if you literally don't have people pay taxes, it's still resulting in growing wealth inequality.

And I'm sure you're gonna claim that I'm suggesting pure income/wealth equality is what we want, which I'm not. However, it is absolutely essential to a functioning market economy that wealth and income inequality do not become too great, as that was one of the contributing factors to the Great Depression. If the economic lower class does not have money to purchase goods and services the businesses owned by the rich produce, those businesses will inevitably decline.

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

Asshole Trump may be, but Maher doesn't quite get to the nugget of why the asshole is so popular.

He starts to scratch the surface a bit by addressing the failures in the education system, but he doesn't quite go far enough.

(Before I go further and people start arguing with me, let me be clear: I. Do. Not. Like. Trump. Okay? Okay. Lets continue.)

In spite of his many flaws, Trump is doing a few things right in his campaign: He is addressing many of the problems that a large number of Americans are being pressured by. His solutions range from dumb to crazy, but the problems he talks about, economic pressures, stagnant wages, vanishing middle class inability to 'get ahead,' etc. are real. This socio-economic group people who have been increasingly left behind since the late 70’s/early 80’s the adoption of trickle-down economics.

For this group of people, in spite of all the other ridiculous stuff Trump says, blaming problems on “those people,” and other crap—-and as flawed as his is, at least he’s addressing some of their troubles.

..

I'm sure Maher is smart enough to recognize that income and wealth inequality has played a roll in Trump's rise in popularity. I guess he didn't have time to talk about that in this short clip...

I don't know what folks you mean or how squeaky clean you mean, but I think if you search the internet long enough, you'll find someone childish enough to accuse Hilary of corruption for, say, cutting the queue at Burger King. I agree that you can't expect people to be perfect since birth, do people really ask for that?

I look at the world around us: unbelievable wealth inequality, global warming, oil wars, illegal invasions, the hijacking of Greek democracy, the great bankers bailout swindle, austerity politics, the pay gap.... I won't go on. The world has not been well managed for a long time now. A national leader represents a fuck-ton of people and their decisions can literally lead to the slow or immediate death of all of us, either by inaction or incompetence or mistake....etc. Honesty and integrity have got to be important now, even if the old ways seem familiar and comfortable. I would argue it's childish (naive) to say let's ignore those things.

Your video, Congress Spends Billions to Make Wealth Inequality Worse, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

What makes you believe and trust in Trump's motivation to do this? I accept that the figurehead of a larger than life, brash character taking the fight to the industrialists is a nice (if a bit Ayn Rand-ish) mental image that fits a romantic view of things.

But is it any more realistic to believe that a man motivated all his life by the desire to consolidate wealth and power would altruistically suddenly decide to reach out and make drastic changes to create a world which works for the poorest, least educated member of society? On balance of evidence, is that more likely than him turning out to be another Bush? Who i hope we can agree probably didn't make life any easier for the average working family considering wealth inequality has increased steadily since say the early 90s? Is a man at the top of that wealth inequality gap more likely to increase or decrease said gap?

Bernie's supporters feel the urgent need for radical change that essentially deals with social equality. They feel like people like Trump have been manipulating the system against them all their lives - whether that's a fair accusation or not. They're going to need convincing that Trump knows what to do and will do it. Policy documents would probably help his credibility.. it might not be the normal way of doing things but these aren't normal times. I don't see Bernie supporters, sick of being lied to, buying into phrases like "trust me" and "i know".

The devil is in the details, isn't it?

For instance, what kind of guaranteed minimum income are we talking about?

The context they used (automatisation, labour supply) suggests to me something along the lines of an unconditional basic income. If that's the case, it cannot be compared to a minimum wage at all, since it has effects that go far beyond the labour market and the income situation. It's a massive reshaping of how we organise society. And it becomes a pain in the ass to even conceptualise properly once you talk about how to finance it...

A minimum wage, no matter how decent it is, doesn't even put a dent into the disparity between income from labour and income from capital. It makes life less horrible for those it applies to and it somewhat curtails the welfare queens among corporations who like their wage slaves being paid for by society. Yes, I'm looking at you, Walmart! Still, on its own, it does very little about income inequality, and nothing at all about wealth inequality.

How would I address income inequality?

In German, the words for taxes and steering are the same: "Steuern". If you want to steer the income towards a more equal distribution, taxation might be the easiest way to go about it. Treat all forms of income equally in terms of taxation. Or go one step further and treat wages preferentially to support employment.

However, redistribution will only get you so far. So why not address it at an earlier stage: distribution. Mondragon serves as a successful example of how a cooperative structure puts democratic checks and balances on the wage structure within a corporation. One person, one vote puts the lid on any attempts by higher-ups to rake in 300 times as much as the peasants on the factory floor.

Yet it doesn't do anything about the inequality between wages and capital income. Even a combination of progressive taxation and fixed income-ratios doesn't do much about it. Especially since non-wage income can evade taxation in a million different ways and most politicians in every country in the world seem more than eager to protect what loopholes they created over the decades.

So what's my suggestion? Well, progressive taxation of both income and wealth, living wage plus job guarantee, support of democratic structures at the workplace, international pressure on tax havens (which includes my own fecking country). Realistic? No. But neither was our welfare system until it was implemented.

But in a world with massive inequalities in wealth, you simply cannot put cronyism aside. Humans are corruptible, and when some people own millions of times the amount of wealth of others, they can (and many do) use that wealth to slant the playing field drastically in their favor, apparently in order to ensure that nobody can ever catch up with them, or even do as well as they did.

This is the core problem with high levels of wealth inequality. Sociopaths win.

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...

It's funny you feel they are different things. As I see it, there is a finite amount of money, if one small group gets an unfair share (inequality) then the other groups MUST also get an unfair share. Equality (or to you, anti-inequality) means being paid in accordance with your production / productivity. When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly.
To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty, but at the expense of the populace of MOST of the world which is falling deeper into it. This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them. They have, in most part, become a heavy hand of the business world, bought and paid for with hundreds of millions in bribes (contributions) around the world. They then write laws, regulations, programs, and create loopholes that can only be advantageous to the rich and powerful while reducing the programs designed to fight poverty and force the payment of living wages.
Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like, it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis. History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt. I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France) along with a large percentage of the unapologetic 1%, then the people can redistribute their wealth without government intervention, that placates the Right Wing, right?
FYI: Thymology is not a word in the dictionary...at least not yet. Praxeology is the study of human behavior. It is not yet at a point where it's an accurate predictor. Sorry, but I don't see a "Foundation" story starting here. (sifi where human behavior CAN be accurately predicted mathematically)

Try as I may, I just don't care about wealth inequality. I care about poverty, but I really don't care about how much money a rich person has. And I may care about government redistributing money one way or the other (usually from the bottom up), but about "inequality," per se, I really don't care.

Praxeology shows you what a just environment for the maximum wealth of a society should look like. Thymology shows you why inevitably some people will make more money than others in a fair playing field. When inequality results not so much from thymological differences but from praxeological distortions, then you should suspect foul play.

Too often, anti-inequality folks ignore thymological differences while trying to distort/impose praxeological laws to force compliance, a recipe for certain failure.
Still, much of the world has been coming out of poverty, a testament to the power of commerce and its ability to bypass governments altogether.

I think the concept mentioned in the four horsemen video that just got release explained it quite well - humans have an ability to adapt to almost anything, so while it helps us progress, it also lets us endure the worst sorts of things that go on in the world with relative indifference.

Really good vid though, Brand really hit the nail on the head with his comments, and that Paxman guy is an absolute douche, essentially rolling his eyes at the end as if to say, yes the environment is being destroyed, yes, the wealth inequity is enormous, but having to listen to someone actually say it, oh how trite!!11@

Hi @Krupo, you raise interesting points, I'm not sure I can address all of them, even though I think a few issues are worth talking about. I'm sorry you felt I was unfair towards @dag, I can assure you that wasn't my intention, because even after reading your post, I'm not sure I see much difference between taxing individuals and mining companies (at least for the point I was trying to make, IIRC).

I wonder what is it about a natural resource that is underground (and that is mostly useless unless extracted), that makes it such a crime to extract and sell it without some additional taxation. It's not like removing oil or minerals is damaging anybody, and it wasn't actually available until someone extracted it. Sure, if there's pollution, or destruction of property, they should pay. However, just paying because it's a "natural resource", when they're the ones making the resource available to society, seems wrong to me, but I guess those who benefit from taking other people's money can always come up with rationalizations to collect a tax.

If we do charge more taxes for mining, though, won't the company just transfer the taxes to the final product, taxing consumers and other industries? More importantly, will raising taxes contribute in any way to better wealth distribution?

Remember, taxation doesn't mean giving money back to society as we often like to think, it just means giving money to government. That's a big difference. Government uses money not just for operation, but as a tool to further its own political agenda, one that sometimes involves corruption, and the added power that comes with it. Why is it best for society to give government more power? Why is society better off by giving government more fuel for waste or corruption?

The reason I mention corruption is because I believe it's an important contributing factor to wealth inequality. I also happen to think corruption plays a significant part in how a government operates, even in the fairest of democracies.