9 ms·

How can you be sure of that? The 1% own airlines, cruise liners, factories that produce buses and cars, etc. The other 99% ride on those for enjoyment and busin

How can you be sure of that? The 1% own airlines, cruise liners, factories that produce buses and cars, etc. The other 99% ride on those for enjoyment and business. The problem with your argument is that you somehow believe that the 1% is warming the planet and the only people benefiting are the 1%. This is your flaw. The 1% are rich because they add value to the other 99%. Without the 1%, you wouldn’t have air travel or buses!

newen 6y ago
No, you would still have air travel and buses. They just wouldn't own it.
wyre 6y ago
It’s 1% of the world. So incomes over $100k I think. This is a world issue. There are billions of people that have never flown on an airplane and probably billions of people that have never been in a bus. The 1% are largely the only people unaffected by climate change while it greatly effects communities in the global south.
- collyw 6y ago
  top 1% of the world incomes only requires around $32,000. https://activerain.com/blogsview/5136164/are-you-in-the-top-1--in-the-world-- https://activerain.com/blogsview/5136164/are-you-in-the-top-...
tuatoru 6y ago
> The 1% own ... Ownership by and of itself is not socially useful. If an object transfers from Scrooge McDuck to Daddy Warbucks, and nothing else changes, nothing useful is done. The 1% get excellent educations and have amazing social networks. We need a scheme to encourage them to become socially useful. My preference is 99.5% estate taxes,[1] coupled with heavy taxation of unearned income (money you get without having to work for it). 1. Conserving estates made sense when wealthy male life expectancy was in the fities, and welathy males did not start to produce offspring until their forties; daily life was more dangerous (naked flames and heavy drapes, ill-treated and cantankerous farm animals everywhere, and on and on); and society was a lot more volatile than it is now.[2] These days, a wealthy male will die in their nineties, with children in their sixties. The kids don't need the estate; they've already had all the help they can make use of. This is what that hero of much economic theory, the rational social planner, would do to derive a return on investment from wealthy families. 2. The period since WWII is the longest period of peace in Europe for several hundred years, if not ever.
- goodluckchuck 6y ago
  > Ownership by and of itself is not socially useful. Tell that to the various socialist and former-communist countries where industrial capital has depreciated to nothingness with a lack of maintenance because the capital lacked a beneficial owner.
scotty79 6y ago
Cruise liners given as an example of how beneficial is the richest 1% to humanity that consists mostly of poor people? Wow. I had to check if a cruise liner is what I think it is.

newen 6y ago

No, you would still have air travel and buses. They just wouldn't own it.

wyre 6y ago

It’s 1% of the world. So incomes over $100k I think. This is a world issue. There are billions of people that have never flown on an airplane and probably billions of people that have never been in a bus. The 1% are largely the only people unaffected by climate change while it greatly effects communities in the global south.

collyw 6y ago
top 1% of the world incomes only requires around $32,000. https://activerain.com/blogsview/5136164/are-you-in-the-top-1--in-the-world-- https://activerain.com/blogsview/5136164/are-you-in-the-top-...

tuatoru 6y ago

> The 1% own ... Ownership by and of itself is not socially useful. If an object transfers from Scrooge McDuck to Daddy Warbucks, and nothing else changes, nothing useful is done. The 1% get excellent educations and have amazing social networks. We need a scheme to encourage them to become socially useful. My preference is 99.5% estate taxes,[1] coupled with heavy taxation of unearned income (money you get without having to work for it). 1. Conserving estates made sense when wealthy male life expectancy was in the fities, and welathy males did not start to produce offspring until their forties; daily life was more dangerous (naked flames and heavy drapes, ill-treated and cantankerous farm animals everywhere, and on and on); and society was a lot more volatile than it is now.[2] These days, a wealthy male will die in their nineties, with children in their sixties. The kids don't need the estate; they've already had all the help they can make use of. This is what that hero of much economic theory, the rational social planner, would do to derive a return on investment from wealthy families. 2. The period since WWII is the longest period of peace in Europe for several hundred years, if not ever.

goodluckchuck 6y ago
> Ownership by and of itself is not socially useful. Tell that to the various socialist and former-communist countries where industrial capital has depreciated to nothingness with a lack of maintenance because the capital lacked a beneficial owner.

scotty79 6y ago

Cruise liners given as an example of how beneficial is the richest 1% to humanity that consists mostly of poor people? Wow. I had to check if a cruise liner is what I think it is.