Why the world cannot afford the rich

[Whaleblue]

@Joe P , the thing/problem is that it’s all relative. The vast majority posting here are in the very top few percentage of the world’s wealthiest individuals, and some of us might even taste good. Many heat their homes, drive cars and go on airplanes on holiday. If we stop doing these things the 90% plus of the rest of humanity would benefit greatly.

I blame the ancient Greeks, or maybe the Egyptians? Or was it the Aztecs, or perhaps Mesopotamians? Thinking about it, I suspect if we cut to the chase some of those amoeba were less than selfless. Anyway, somebody started it, but we’re kind of stuck with the competitive nature of life.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Competitive yes, but we can surely change society’s view of what ‘successful’ looks like. Let’s move from ‘most money’ to ‘most happy’.

 

[ks.234]

Following the end of the Napoleonic War in 1815, the public mood of compliance with income tax rapidly evaporated. The government wanted to retain it to help reduce the National Debt, which by now had swelled to over £700 million. However, strong public opposition to the tax was demonstrated by landowners, merchants, manufacturers, bankers, and tradesmen. It was denounced as 'repugnant' at a large public meeting at Manchester, and almost 400 petitions against it were presented to the House of Commons. Finally, on 18 March 1816, the government was narrowly defeated on the issue and was forced to abandon it.

Those were the days.

Good post. I would quibble about how “the public mood” could be measured in 1815, but the opposition to income tax does always come from the richest.

The Peasant’s revolt in the 1380’s was a revolt against pushing the tax burden onto the poorest.

Such as it was, so will it ever be?

 

[Whaleblue]

Competitive yes, but we can surely change society’s view of what ‘successful’ looks like. Let’s move from ‘most money’ to ‘most happy’.

We’d be overturning the whole of evolution if we did so. Just imagine for yourself (and if, at the same time you can not take this personally…) whether you could see yourself handing over all your possessions to share with “everyone else” - would you do it, or would some sneaking doubt that you were doing the wrong thing by yourself creep in? I know, not a well enough painted picture to work on, but you get my drift?

 

[TheFlash]

Good post. I would quibble about how “the public mood” could be measured in 1815, but the opposition to income tax does always come from the richest.

The Peasant’s revolt in the 1380’s was a revolt against pushing the tax burden onto the poorest.

Such as it was, so will it ever be?

Presumably it was only the male public mood too.

 

[TheFlash]

We’d be overturning the whole of evolution if we did so. Just imagine for yourself (and if, at the same time you can not take this personally…) whether you could see yourself handing over all your possessions to share with “everyone else” - would you do it, or would some sneaking doubt that you were doing the wrong thing by yourself creep in? I know, not a well enough painted picture to work on, but you get my drift?

I'm willing to share.... once I have just a little bit more.

Said in self-parody.

 

[ks.234]

Presumably it was only the male public mood too.

Good question. After the Black Death more women ended up in charge of plots of land or a small businesses, but I suspect that nevertheless males still dictated public mood.

And quite right too I should say. Things have only gone downhill ever since.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

We’d be overturning the whole of evolution if we did so. Just imagine for yourself (and if, at the same time you can not take this personally…) whether you could see yourself handing over all your possessions to share with “everyone else” - would you do it, or would some sneaking doubt that you were doing the wrong thing by yourself creep in? I know, not a well enough painted picture to work on, but you get my drift?

Not taken personally at all, but your challenge isn’t entirely fair as moving from ‘most money’ to ‘most happy’ doesn’t imply a vow of poverty. But it does recognise that money alone will not buy you happiness, (though it might buy you misery in more comfort). So you can be happy while having ‘enough’, and having ‘more than enough’ doesn’t equate to more happy.

I suspect that a lot of the very wealthy are somewhat sociopathic, and also addiction prone, like compulsive gamblers they can’t stop. That’s not happy. So if we could somehow adopt societal values that pity them, as we pity compulsive gamblers, we start to take away their power over us.

 

[darrenyeats]

At work I suggested we'd keep our (one) car, a Toyota, if we won the lottery. I was serious, but I got laughed out of the room. I think most people when they rail at the 1%, would actually be just as bad given the opportunity, and I feel the general attitude of our society needs to get better.

I think there are some very rich people who live small, but we don't see them. They anyway have to keep a low profile being this way - security by obscurity. That leaves prominent bad examples.

 

[paulfromcamden]

I suspect that a lot of the very wealthy are somewhat sociopathic, and also addiction prone, like compulsive gamblers they can’t stop. That’s not happy. So if we could somehow adopt societal values that pity them, as we pity compulsive gamblers, we start to take away their power over us.

That's one thing I've always wondered. Why would you bother getting up and going into the office once you'd make your first £10m?

Take the year off. Do something less boring instead.

Maybe like our friends struggling on £100k they don't feel rich compared to the peeps with £100m stashed away or the billionaires complaining about the cost of private Caribbean islands these days.

 

[Finnegan]

Remind me what they called the first year of the French Republic..? It was more than a few aristos' heads in baskets.

That's the problem with revolutions. Once you go around saying "everything must change", some asshole will take you at your word and start destroying the parts of the society that actually functioned. Then some other asshole will decide that the result of the revolution doesn't conform to their specific expectations, and so more people die in order to purge the state of unrevolutionary thoughts (thoughts like "what happened to those rights we were supposed tp have won?"). And who loses most? The poor. Always the poor.

And that’s the problem with discussing revolution. There’s always someone on hand to remind us that “they all end in terror.” Not only ahistorical and simplistic, but essentially an excuse for passivity. As Mark Twain said “There were two ‘Reigns of Terror’ if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other lasted a thousand years.”

 

[paulfromcamden]

And that’s the problem with discussing revolution. There’s always someone on hand to remind us that “they all end in terror.” Not only ahistorical and simplistic, but essentially an excuse for passivity. As Mark Twain said “There were two ‘Reigns of Terror’ if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other lasted a thousand years.”

I'm fairly sceptical of revolutions but you're right. A quick skim of wiki shows it can be done without executing great swathes of the population - the Czech velvet revolution being an example.

 

[davidsrsb]

That's one thing I've always wondered. Why would you bother getting up and going into the office once you'd make your first £10m?

The rich have an absolute obsession with making more. They are not normal and don't enjoy normal leisure activities - see Howard Hughes

 

[Somafunk]

Once you are so rich that the excitement of being able to purchase whatever you wish wanes, you then turn to getting your kicks purchasing power

 

[PsB]

Remind me what they called the first year of the French Republic..? It was more than a few aristos' heads in baskets.

That's the problem with revolutions. Once you go around saying "everything must change", some asshole will take you at your word and start destroying the parts of the society that actually functioned. Then some other asshole will decide that the result of the revolution doesn't conform to their specific expectations, and so more people die in order to purge the state of unrevolutionary thoughts (thoughts like "what happened to those rights we were supposed tp have won?"). And who loses most? The poor. Always the poor.

One has to remember that it wasn't just the matter of regime change: the new government had to face several invasions by a coalition of European armies, while simultaneously putting down a counter-revolution in various provinces, drafting a new Constitution, and feeding the masses. Conventional estimates are that up to 500,000 persons were imprisoned under the Terror, and that several tens of thousands were executed by guillotine, firing squad or drowning. But these don't include many non-judicial killings, especially in Vendée and in other parts of the west of France, maybe another 30-40,000. All considerable numbers, but not Stalinian purges either. The scale of the Terror was both substantially exaggerated and minimized later on, in accordance with the political agenda of the government of the day.

 

[Cheese]

Let’s move from ‘most money’ to ‘most happy’.

Easy to say for those, like most of us here, who have money enough so as to consider it a non-priority.

 

[ks.234]

We’d be overturning the whole of evolution if we did so. Just imagine for yourself (and if, at the same time you can not take this personally…) whether you could see yourself handing over all your possessions to share with “everyone else” - would you do it, or would some sneaking doubt that you were doing the wrong thing by yourself creep in? I know, not a well enough painted picture to work on, but you get my drift?

greater equality means changing where government spending goes, not “you” giving up your private goods

 

[KrisW]

And that’s the problem with discussing revolution. There’s always someone on hand to remind us that “they all end in terror.” Not only ahistorical and simplistic, but essentially an excuse for passivity. As Mark Twain said “There were two ‘Reigns of Terror’ if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other lasted a thousand years.”

If we're talking about forcible overthrow of a regime through non-democratic means, then historically, more revolutions have ended badly than well for their citizens. Of the successes, they've often needed a second uprising to reign in or depose the first. Also, there's an odd tendency among the supporters of revolution to consider only those revolutions that topple repressive regimes and ignore the ones that have imposed them.

Revolution by insurrection creates a power vacuum, and it's one that is frequently exploited by actors that never shared the original "revolutionary" goals.

There are other kinds of "revolution", and not all involve burning government offices: democratically created revolutions, which radically shift the policies of the govenment and its successors, do have longer lasting effect, but they can also be positive or negative. The UK has had two notable examples of this phenomenon: one in 1945 and the other in 1979.

Throwing out everything and starting again is a naive approach to effecting change. We're lucky it only happens rarely.

 

[ks.234]

If we're talking about forcible overthrow of a regime through non-democratic means, then historically, more revolutions have ended badly than well for their citizens. Of the successes, they've often needed a second uprising to reign in or depose the first. Also, there's an odd tendency among the supporters of revolution to consider only those revolutions that topple repressive regimes and ignore the ones that have imposed them.

Revolution by insurrection creates a power vacuum, and it's one that is frequently exploited by actors that never shared the original "revolutionary" goals.

There are other kinds of "revolution", and not all involve burning government offices: democratically created revolutions, which radically shift the policies of the govenment and its successors, do have longer lasting effect, but they can also be positive or negative. The UK has had two notable examples of this phenomenon: one in 1945 and the other in 1979.

Throwing out everything and starting again is a naive approach to effecting change. We're lucky it only happens rarely.

The whole notion of a “revolution” is contentious, revolutions are seen as ”terror” when they start from the bottom (of more usually from the middle classes) to overthrow an unelected state elite. But when the state elite overthrows a democracy, it isn’t called a revolution, it’s a coup. Even the top down revolution in 1689 was called glorious.

 

[Finnegan]

If we're talking about forcible overthrow of a regime through non-democratic means, then historically, more revolutions have ended badly than well for their citizens. Of the successes, they've often needed a second uprising to reign in or depose the first. Also, there's an odd tendency among the supporters of revolution to consider only those revolutions that topple repressive regimes and ignore the ones that have imposed them.

Revolution by insurrection creates a power vacuum, and it's one that is frequently exploited by actors that never shared the original "revolutionary" goals.

There are other kinds of "revolution", and not all involve burning government offices: democratically created revolutions, which radically shift the policies of the govenment and its successors, do have longer lasting effect, but they can also be positive or negative. The UK has had two notable examples of this phenomenon: one in 1945 and the other in 1979.

Throwing out everything and starting again is a naive approach to effecting change. We're lucky it only happens rarely.

My point is that the opinion that all (violent) revolutions end in tyranny is simplistic and ahistoric. It is easy to look at France post 1789, or Russia post 1917, or Spain post 1936, and conclude that tyranny breeds tyranny, or that violently overthrowing an undemocractic and authoritarian regime is destined to replicate that authoritarianism.

There is a really dreadful film about the English Revolution- To Kill A King, with Tim Roth as a psychotic, deranged, murderous Oliver Cromwell whose whole raison d’etre seems to be to bloodily dispense with his opponents, with absolutely no attempt whatsoever to historically contextualise events.

Whether it was the execution of counter revolutionary plotters in the face of a Prussian invasion in France, or the abolition of the Provisional Government while Kerensky vacillated and Kornilov plotted a military coup, against a backdrop of an imminent White counter revolution in Russia, or anarchists refusing to confront the true character of the state in Spain in 1936, there are historical and political reasons why events followed a particular course: none of which were inevitable and none of which were a result of any supposed inherent tyranny in the process of revolution.