- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Half of the UK is owned by 1%
Posted on 4/20/19 at 10:34 am to chalmetteowl
Posted on 4/20/19 at 10:34 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
everyone has to pay their share for the common society.
Another vague platitude.
Using that silly statement, 100% confiscation of wealth by the State could be argued.
0
Posted on 4/20/19 at 10:35 am to jimbeam
quote:
No matter how you distribute wealth, unless you have dictated equality of outcome, the money will always flow back to the most competent ie the 1%
I think most Marxists think that wealth is liquid. In fact, much of it is just on paper. It's not a zero sum game and more people becoming wealthy in no way hinders the opportunity of advancement for the lower classes.
Its a fallacy.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 10:47 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
some in that 1% got there via unearned advantages.
Sure, and that’s just the way it is.
Life isn’t fair.
And you don’t deserve anything.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 10:50 am to slackster
quote:
quote:
So, let’s be generous and say that 5% of the wealthiest in the UK own everything. Is that ok?
What do you propose we do to fix that?
We already did. Fee simple ownership of land was established dating back to the Northwest Ordinance in 1787.
The effect of that was getting rid of primogeniture and fee tail ownership of land - in other words, breaking up estates and distributing it among multiple heirs who could do anything they wanted to with it (keep it, subdivide it, sell it, etc.) instead of keeping it together and passing only to the eldest son. For that, along with explicitly outlawing titles of nobility in the constitution, you can thank James Madison and especially Thomas Jefferson.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 11:04 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
more people becoming wealthy in no way hinders the opportunity of advancement for the lower classes.
Exactly. This is the great thing about capitalism. You have A CHANCE (not a guarantee) to go out there, succeed, and be commensurately rewarded. For most of human history that has not been the case. In socialism/communism it’s DEFINITELY not the case.
All I want is a fair chance to make a go of it. I can look at a piece of land up for sale and know my numbers well enough to decide whether it will be an earner or anchor. On the other hand some of these established elite don’t. They grow out of practice, get complacent, or simply overlook something and before they know it they’ve made a terrible mistake and have been knocked down a few pegs.
That’s one thing I RARELY see mentioned in these articles. Everyone likes to talk about those who are currently on top of the mountain. The ones who’ve made it. What they neglect to mention is how much TURNOVER there can be at the upper reaches of wealth. It’s very hard to stay on top of the mountain. One bad generation of decisions can destroy everything that multiple generations prior to that built up.
In fact, the generally accepted statistic is that 70% of fortunes are lost in the second generation and 90% in the third. That’s simply unreal. These scant few families who have continued to grow are the exception, not the rule.
A common practice among the British elite during the 19th and even 20th centuries was actually to seek out American heiresses in order to supplement their dwindling fortunes during those turbulent times. The smart ones survived and were stronger for it. The others no one talks about.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 11:09 am to Decisions
quote:
In fact, the generally accepted statistic is that 70% of fortunes are lost in the second generation and 90% in the third. That’s simply unreal. These scant few families who have continued to grow are the exception, not the rule.
This isn’t actually true.
Read Clarks research at UC Davis.
Earlier studies didn’t look back far enough, we were capturing generational churn. The son of the industrialist, becomes a painter.
Families actually rise and fall over the course of several centuries.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 11:21 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Crony capitalism.
Free Market capitalism would do the opposite.
I'm all for capitalism, but wouldn't a total free market system put us back where we were as a country in the early 1900's?
With guys like standard oil and JP Morgan buying up everything, there would be no competition. I'm pretty sure Mexico is going through this problem right now. Or at least that's how my Mexican buddies feel.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:14 pm to Lima Whiskey
I looked at that study and don’t necessarily agree with you. According to the graphs the families that were rich regressed pretty significantly back to the mean over the course of 3-4 generations. Certainly far enough to not be considered “rich” anymore.
When I say “fortunes are lost” I’m not saying the descendants spend themselves into the depths of poverty. I’m picturing a fall from wealthy to something like middle/upper-middle class. I know that doesn’t seem as drastic as some would like to picture, but it’s the most common outcome.
Children decide that they’re content with the portion that they’re given and rather than adding to the estate they stagnate. Then it’s split amongst their heirs during the next generation and the problem snowballs further.
THIS outcome is all too common. Some families avoided this pitfall somewhat through primogeniture, but it really comes down to inherited ambition, not inherited assets.
When I say “fortunes are lost” I’m not saying the descendants spend themselves into the depths of poverty. I’m picturing a fall from wealthy to something like middle/upper-middle class. I know that doesn’t seem as drastic as some would like to picture, but it’s the most common outcome.
Children decide that they’re content with the portion that they’re given and rather than adding to the estate they stagnate. Then it’s split amongst their heirs during the next generation and the problem snowballs further.
THIS outcome is all too common. Some families avoided this pitfall somewhat through primogeniture, but it really comes down to inherited ambition, not inherited assets.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:19 pm to Decisions
quote:
A common practice among the British elite during the 19th and even 20th centuries was actually to seek out American heiresses in order to supplement their dwindling fortunes during those turbulent times. The smart ones survived and were stronger for it. The others no one talks about.
For example, Downton Abbey.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:20 pm to BRgetthenet
quote:
For example, Downton Abbey.
Wasn't that the excellent documentary series about this?
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:22 pm to dbbuilder79
quote:
I'm all for capitalism, but wouldn't a total free market system put us back where we were as a country in the early 1900's?
Nah, probably have a lot more cottage industry. The "Robber barons" depended heavily on gubmint favor. Mises
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:23 pm to LCA131
Yeah. It was a great series.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:34 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Some socialist is downvoting like a mother ITT.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:40 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
I’m willing to bet I have a more advanced degree than you, I’m
Educated doesn’t mean intelligent.
Also unless you have contributed ground breaking discoveries or ideas, advanced degrees just prove you know more about a very limited and specific subject matter, not that you are any more intelligent than anyone else.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:45 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Also unless you have contributed ground breaking discoveries or ideas, advanced degrees just prove you know more about a very limited and specific subject matter, not that you are any more intelligent than anyone else.
But it’s a dude, pretending to be a chick.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:45 pm to dbbuilder79
It wasn’t that the free market allowed them to do that, they bought, bribed, and criminally snuffed competition.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:48 pm to pumpyouup
quote:
Less than 1 percent of the population — including aristocrats, royals and wealthy investors
I didn’t read the link. I wonder how much of that 1% are the royals and old noble families as opposed to the run of the mill nouveau riche.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 1:10 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Thanks for the article.
Even though I don't think I will ever live to see a time where the government or politicians won't have their hands in big business.
It seems to be a reoccurring process. Guy builds an empire. Guy makes his empire a massive corporation. Guy is pushed out. Corporate board gives into political agendas.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 2:52 pm to Decisions
Again, you’re just talking about churn. There will be fluctuations, but those rich families are staying rich.
The richest families in Florence in 1427, are the richest families in Florence today.
The richest families in Florence in 1427, are the richest families in Florence today.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 3:04 pm to Lima Whiskey
Now I know you are making things up.
Mussel shoals isn’t anywhere near that old much less Florence
Mussel shoals isn’t anywhere near that old much less Florence
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News