I believe you are constructing strawmen and false dichotomies. Wealth is not just economic power, it’s power, period. If concentration is good, why not embrace it to the full extent? Is the current distribution of wealth appropriate (in, based on the OP, the US), or was it better 50 yrs ago?
I did not say equal distribution or no incentives. I did not argue against the entrepreneur. The current situation is extreme inequality. We are nowhere near risk of losing the incentive. This reduces quality of life for almost all due to hoarding of resources. This also stifles the entrepreneur. So much of the fruits of labor is directed towards so few.
Investment is not limited to individuals with massive wealth. There is no reason investment cannot occur by combining resources of many instead of few. By and large, large amounts of money seeks to generate more money. I believe it’s far better to have broad ownership. I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity). People will still act that way, but I’m convinced that broad ownership will improve that aspect.
I do not believe that wealth equality or equality at all is desirable.
I understand that many working class people find themselves in a precarious position nowadays. I am sympathetic, but I believe that this is better addressed by reforms to the capitalist system than socialism.
In my previous comment I already addressed why I think most people would be more comfortable and better suited having less economic power. This does not necessarily mean their quality of life is worse.
Regarding your other point: “I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity).” I completely disagree. The reason the “current and future health of humanity” is not accounted for is that under a market system these things are not factored into the price. So the market as a regulating tool is ignoring these issues. It would be no different if a commonly owned investment fund was investing, for instance, as it would still do things that make the most sense under a market system. This is known as a problem of externalities, and it is an argument for government intervention in the market system that I fully accept, but not for redistribution of wealth as that will likely not change anything for as long as markets are involved.
But money is power and power is expressed through regulatory capture. It’s not right, but there will always be pressure towards wealth dictating the market structure and rules. Ultra wealth inequality dismantles the systems you expect to ensure externalities are considered.
In any case, yes, we agree that markets often fail on considerations of important externalities. Furthermore, we agree that government has a role in correcting that.
I believe you are constructing strawmen and false dichotomies. Wealth is not just economic power, it’s power, period. If concentration is good, why not embrace it to the full extent? Is the current distribution of wealth appropriate (in, based on the OP, the US), or was it better 50 yrs ago?
I did not say equal distribution or no incentives. I did not argue against the entrepreneur. The current situation is extreme inequality. We are nowhere near risk of losing the incentive. This reduces quality of life for almost all due to hoarding of resources. This also stifles the entrepreneur. So much of the fruits of labor is directed towards so few.
Investment is not limited to individuals with massive wealth. There is no reason investment cannot occur by combining resources of many instead of few. By and large, large amounts of money seeks to generate more money. I believe it’s far better to have broad ownership. I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity). People will still act that way, but I’m convinced that broad ownership will improve that aspect.
Economic power is power, yes.
I do not believe that wealth equality or equality at all is desirable.
I understand that many working class people find themselves in a precarious position nowadays. I am sympathetic, but I believe that this is better addressed by reforms to the capitalist system than socialism.
In my previous comment I already addressed why I think most people would be more comfortable and better suited having less economic power. This does not necessarily mean their quality of life is worse.
Regarding your other point: “I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity).” I completely disagree. The reason the “current and future health of humanity” is not accounted for is that under a market system these things are not factored into the price. So the market as a regulating tool is ignoring these issues. It would be no different if a commonly owned investment fund was investing, for instance, as it would still do things that make the most sense under a market system. This is known as a problem of externalities, and it is an argument for government intervention in the market system that I fully accept, but not for redistribution of wealth as that will likely not change anything for as long as markets are involved.
But money is power and power is expressed through regulatory capture. It’s not right, but there will always be pressure towards wealth dictating the market structure and rules. Ultra wealth inequality dismantles the systems you expect to ensure externalities are considered.
In any case, yes, we agree that markets often fail on considerations of important externalities. Furthermore, we agree that government has a role in correcting that.
That is actually a good point. Unusual, but welcome.