I really like Charles Hugh Smith. I think we are in the Bloat phase. I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but in both Education and Medicine, the growth of Administrative staff have WILDLY outpaced the growth of practitioners in recent years. This has directly resulted in massive price increases with no increase in value to the customer.

Hey Jg,

Somehow, evictions got tossed into my Youtube feed, after I had read the "BiggerPockets" thread about the landlord who spent 5 years trying to evict a squatter.

But rather than local evictions, they were all in England/Scotland. I was having a really hard time understanding what the issue was, since from the sound of the arguments, the folks actually owned their homes or were current on their mortgages. I finally figured out it was as you described...they owned the homes, but the lease on the land was up, and not being renewed, and they were being evicted.

That is clearly a problem. What an f-ed up system. In Rich's world, never have a minority stake, and never own a building and not the land.

Best,
Rich

Amen Bill!

That is what I try to do. Just as culture is the foundation of great companies the values that create the basis for the culture are critical and must come from the founder or current leadership. Values also create the boundaries of ethics.

One of our company's values is "Team First" which we define as "Individual achievement is important but the team comes first". As the owner of the business, and a leader within it, I must always think about your question. As I express it to our team, our team does to others, "I want to help you achieve your dreams. I believe that if I do mine will come true by default."

We've accomplished a lot in our company: 35% CAGR since inception, #1 in our industry many years, dozens of millionaires and more that we are proud of. But the thing I am proudest of is that our employees consistently vote us one of the best places to work in our state and in our industry nationally.

But who is the "us"? Your company and employees or society at large?

You could argue that bribing politicians to create tax carveouts for your business (ie carried interest, capital gains, and other banking shenanigans) would make your business successful ad your employees happy but this would come at the expense of society at large.

What about all of the bribing that the defense contractors do? Great for their business and employees but bad for society because it creates a huge amount of waste in the system.

While the discussion about how much is too much is worthwhile, the wealth that has accrued has been done largely in an increasingly unlevel playing field, so the more relevant question is how to fix the disparity that has already occured.

The way almost all of our GDP growth was funneled to the top was invisible to the average person. Any solution to fix this probably needs to work in the same way, but in reverse. I think that will be a complex solution. Reducing the buying power of the ultra wealthy and increasing the buying power of the bottom 99% does not require a wealth tax.

I do think someone having more than a few billion dollars is extraordinary expensive to society, and has no reflection on hard work. Anyone who needs more than that to be happy or motivated needs a shrink.

I do not think someone having 10s of millions or even hundreds of millions is a problem.

Chris,

I don't think I'm missing the point. In the first place, I am still addressing the original issue raised in the most recent twist in this thread. In the second place it's complicated and I have limited time, as we all do, to attempt to thoughtfully reply and in the third it's a threaded conversation with multiple participants which makes it inevitably harder to communicate.

With that said I'll answer your question(s) to the best of my limited ability.

To begin with the word corruption implies something that either causes, or is the result of, a lack of purity in something. As a practical matter virtually everything, in all times an places, is corrupt. Purity, or ideals, point us in the right direction, but just as perfection for humans isn't possible in life neither is its manifestation in any human created thing. Which is my way of explaining my agreement with Mark Jensen.

I'm a lifelong interested observer of human nature and student of history. My knowledge and understanding are certainly imperfect but my observation is that "corruption" is always with us. And that it's power waxes and wanes. Further, from my observations, studies and conversations with living people my conclusion is that almost everyone observes the acts of others, and the consequences of those acts in their time, as unique in history.

That is not the case. In fact, as the writer of Ecclesiastes observes "there is nothing new under the sun". That is certainly true with corruption which is an essential part of humanity and things, institutions and individual human behavior. So, for me, eliminating corruption isn't possible but recognizing that, while it isn't good, focusing on it as the main issue of progress is a waste of time.

With that said I'm not opposed, and in fact am supportive of, attempts to suppress or reduce it. I just realize the ultimate futility of those efforts. I also understand that how we define corruption, and its acceptability in its many forms, is a matter of some profound disagreement in different times and places. My son, who is finishing business school at IESE in Barcelona, has had classes and discussions on the subject which seem fascinating to me but clearly reveal that the American views on the subject seem to be in the minority and that the subject is actually much more complex, and fraught with disagreement, than we, or our discussion here, can realize.

So, I'm just not as worked up about it as some here seem to be. I'd agree that things are far from perfect. I'd agree that economic power begets political power. But I wouldn't agree that this is wrong per se. And, in the context of both U.S. and world history, I'd postulate that the "corruption" caused by economic asymmetry is less than at other points in time but that its seeming acuteness in the present circumstance is caused not by its exceptionalism now but by the current focus on it politically and the curated conversations about it that constitute most media attention.

My essential point throughout is that the inevitable excesses created by any degree of wealth concentration are no reason to disallow the concentration of wealth. And, implicit in my question of "who decides" is the point that the answer to that question points out that in answering it we create a worse form of tyranny and a lesser ultimate economic benefit for all.

In sum I am not in favor of killing the goose because it has soot on its feathers or because some do not like wildfowl.

Yes it is

Only that of value is worth counterfeiting.

Not an MD but doesn't that look a lot like the growth stages of cancer?

Hey Chip, maybe the IRS sent you my refund by mistake!

I think your story is a little misleading.
Per Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... %20dollars,
"For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% 1954 through 1963. For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981. In 1978 income brackets were adjusted for inflation, so fewer people were taxed at high rates.[36] The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% for tax years 1982 through 1986."

By the 70's, the top marginal rate had diminished quite a bit from what it had been for previous decades. I'm pretty sure that the US had run up quite a war debt and that these extreme top marginal rates helped pay that down.
Are the 50's and 60's remembered for diminished prosperity and entrepreneurship? I don't think so.

John

respectfully I note that much of these Billionaires wealth is not held in CASH.
It is held in Stock or Real Estate meaning the majority of the wealth is not liquid. I suppose the mention of liquidity is not meaningful considering we are thinking about billionaires and their ability to generate CASH and get some Top Ramen.

sorry I'm not sure why I even started this post.

OH I just remembered. normal people don't need a Billion dollars to have a SANE life!
good luck to the Neurotic in our society.

Eric

The point is simple: the unbridled accumulation of wealth will bring this, or any system, to an ungraceful end. The idea that those who are in the position, and capable of accumulating great wealth are some special, noble, group of unselfish individuals is just pure stupidity. I want to live in a democracy where the vote of the masses determines our future not where some mega rich individual buys the media and political movement.

Anyone here ever heard of Soros? As an example.

I inherited a small, family run business, but not before I had exclusively run that business and tripled its assets. I did so at at time when the estate taxes reached well down into the members of the working class. I paid taxes on those assets, financed by the payment program offered by the IRS. It never threatened the viability of those assets because I was more capable to run the business than those from whom I inherited.

I have successfully done the most important job in my life: raised good children. Do I have assets that reach into the taxable levels of the greatly increased tax code rates? Yes, Am I fretting that the government will change those rates and damage my children's inheritance.

No.

Do I feel the need to plant a rose garden of inheritance for my children or grandchildren.

No.

Do my children care? No They have done a brilliant job of running their lives. They don't need a thing I've got.

I am very much a member of the proletariat of society. I'm not better than anyone, smarter yes, but not better. My assets give me choices and freedom in life, not superiority.

I am not the least offended by a man creating great wealth by the exercise of effort and initiative. I am horribly offended that if he sees this as putting him and his family in a class of royals that continues generation upon generation by the fortune of birth, not effort.

It is all about democracy. A society where everyone gets his say even when that "say" does not necessarily meet my expectations and desires.

Keep underwriting the accumulation of wealth and resources and muttering "let them eat cake" out of the side of your swollen mouth while you feel so damn superior.

That too shall end.

Jg

The problem is when you have both; the mega rich buys the media to influence the masses for “democratic” votes. This is very purposely not a democracy, and for this reason among others.

Del,

You get it.

I'm tiring of my participation on this subject. Ya'll take your best shots. I'm going elsewhere.

Jg