>Dynastically wealthy families wield a great deal of political power, and use it to further their interests.
I've been saying this pretty much since the start of lockdowns and restrictions. For the past year, we have essentially legislated the transfer of more power and wealth to those already wealthy and powerful. When the dust starts to settle, it will become clearer just how much has changed, and maybe the theoretical questions of "was this worth it"? will become more practical.
I'm not clear that putting those lives on hold acts in one direction or another.
*However*, I guess it is easy to agree that the prescribed policies would face huge political opposition in attempts to implement them. Look at what happened to Bernie's campaign! (Unless, of course, something majeur / extraordinary circumstances - like the Pandemic - are invoked to pass such a policy package in one clean swoop).
Being it so, how about considering a simpler, less contentious, parallel alternative - a bypass around the mighty legal loopholes, media & lobby opposition?
That would be *the creation of Citizen's Wealth Fund*. Just like Norway's Oil Fund. But instead of oil, the asset would be *the bailed out stocks*. In other words, in the "bailout action", the State buys stock, then the State would keep said stock in the fund. Extendable to 5G auction proceeds, other licenses, etc.
best explanation, also longer read, the 208 page book: https://angrynomics.com/
https://www.ippr.org/media-item/watch-a-citizens-wealth-fund... https://youtu.be/rC9RAylrl0s
That means that any policy at all that effectively solves the problem will face opposition - or in other words, if your proposed policy somehow doesn't face opposition, it means the rich families have figured out a loophole in it that lets them keep their money and power.
You have to figure out either a way to get this done despite opposition or a way to break their ability to effectively create opposition.
Herbert does include some quotes that advocate virtue, though, including "Great alms-giving lessens no man's living," "Poor and liberal, rich and covetous," "Wealth is like rheume [a cold]: it falls on the weakest parts," "He is not poor that hath little, but he that desireth much," and "Honor and profit lie not in one sack."
Franklin quotes the phrase in a column "Hints for those that would be rich" (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-02-02-00...), which isn't about earning money and isn't even primarily about savings; it's about not buying unnecessary things on credit and paying interest on it forever. Sound advice, but again, more strategic than moralistic.
I also think that it's natural and human to want to leave a legacy to your kids. It is unnatural and inhumane to leave them such a legacy that they don't have to work at all; there's a reason "trust fund kids" are a stereotype. The article talks about inheritances on the orders of billions, richer than even monarchic dynasties of centuries past, which aren't particularly considered exemplars of virtuous resource allocation these days. (Even Queen Elizabeth II has a personal net worth of only half a billion dollars.) That's well beyond a "legacy."
Anyway, thank you for providing a perfect example of the actual battle here. So long as people believe the propaganda that giving your children billions of dollars is simply the larger-scale version of the virtue of working an honest job and living frugally, they'll hold on to their power.
But what course of action do you purpose? Revolution? They're notoriously messy and difficult to implement...
Sweden has a low income inequality.
Around 20% of the population are immigrants that have yet to accumulate wealth, myself included. If you own an apartment in Stockholm you are already many times richer than any newly arrived. And, at the current prices, it is going to take them 50 years to pay for such an apartment.
So, the system needs time to let everybody accumulate wealth. That is to be expected.
That does not mean that the situation is perfect. In Sweden, like in the rest of the Western world, big corporation does not pay taxes in the country but in tax havens. So, much more can be done to increase the change of everybody getting a good life.
tldr; Sweden is a rich country, newly arrived people from poor countries have no wealth and it is going to take them decades to catch up even if they get a fair salary.
How could I NOT hear about such a statistic for so long?! Especially with all these other inequality statistics being thrown around.
This is blatant lie found in a second on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
Survivorship bias, on the other hand…
