X-Message-Number: 28062
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:06:56 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: the super-rich

> Message #28057
> From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> Subject: economics
> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:37:27 +0100

> >If people prefer to lynch a handy scapegoat instead of going through a
> >legal process, then it is their choice also.

You realise I made this remark to point out an absurdity, not to condone it?

> "the rich", ie those richer than the speaker or writer,

The rich - in this case - are the 200 richest people in the world. So
they are richer than virtually anyone.

> have always been
> handy scapegoats, especially if they can also be identified by some other
> characteristic.

I'm sorry, but a powerless group or individual is more likely to be a
scapegoat - almost by definition. What you are probably referring to
is the revolutionary "ressentiment" that motivated, say, communist
forces to kill the Tsar. Considering their living conditions, I'm not
surprised they killed the old autocrat.

> Often immigrant workers who work harder than the natives and
> thereby amass money become victims of this sort of thing, especially after
> several generations. This has gone on in Europe for thousands of years, not
> just the 20th century.

Fine, but this is not the point.

> The problem with worries about the 200 or so richest people, is how this may
> be resolved.

First of all, it is a good idea to let people know about it and mull
it over. Generally, people who admire wealth will leap to their
defense and point out the charitable works of the wealthy. What they
fail to see is that the super-wealthy have stolen all of the bread,
and then start handing it back out when people starve - and call it
charity. (E.g. Bill Gate's monopoly prevents African nations from
creating their own wealth from software development, then he steps in
with his billions and looks like a good-guy.)

>Programmes against "the rich" in Russia at the
> beginning of the 20th century impoverished the whole nation and had
> repercussions throughout Eastern Europe and indeed the whole world.

I'm not suggesting storming the Winter Palace.

It is unsurprising that (once again) my concerns about massive
centralisation of wealth/power have been hushed with talk of socialism
and Bolsheviks.

Massive wealth is equivalent and worse than the tyrants of any
Middle-Eastern or 20th century European nation. Massive wealth is
financial despotism. There is more to be scared of from these
mega-rich than there is from any red terror or socialist party.

> The question which remains unanswered in my mind is how the riches of these
> 200 would be managed if they were deleted from the scenario.

All interesting - and not impossible - problems.

> At least with rich individuals who have got there under
> their own power there is less politicking and arguing, they just get on with
> it.

There are also less checks and balances, less public scruntiny, less
accountability.

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28062