Why are The One %
There appears to be a consensus that 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth. That is the problem at the root of conflict in the world.
Out of all the problems humankind faces, this is the most inane situation certainly on this planet and probably the rest of the universe.
How can people suffer every day from the fear that financial survival in this world demands? While the resources exist to alleviate 99% of it.
It’s not just the poor and disadvantaged, whose mere existence is an insult and stain on humanity. Most people, even the moderate to reasonably well-to-do, have to struggle with financial survival every day.
We live in a world that appears to be deteriorating around us, as infrastructure is a politicians low priority until it breaks. Federal and local governments around the world have lacked the resources to maintain or replace them. We lack the resources to provide the basic services that we need in this modern society. Governments, like most people, must deal with the pain of choosing priorities in accordance with their financial abilities.
Why? Why? Why?
The resources exist to deal with these issues in a way that eases life and makes it more fair for everyone.
The weight of history, has over the centuries distributed some of the great wealth held by the few amongst the rest of the population. The 1% has counted on control of the military and political scenery to maintain this balance. In this modern world it is unlikely that this is the case. Instant mass communication depending on how it is used may be the saviour or the downfall of humankind.
But the scale is starting to tip the other way. The pressure on society to find another way to keep score and fairly manage resources will meet head-on with a deteriorating society. It is hard to imagine that the flow of history will be stopped.
But for the moment we live in a bizarre world. All but the privileged few, under financial pressure from governments to the people. Meanwhile 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth.
Why?
truthlikewater 
December 17, 2017 at 6:24 am
The resources don’t just exist to be distributed. They are created. The engine of wealth creation has been the fact that people must work to survive. It would be great if human nature was otherwise, but only a small percentage of the population is very high in the big-5 trait of conscientiousness. That percentage of the population would still work even if they did not have to. In fact, if those kinds of people don’t work enough, they feel bad.
Eliminating the need to work to live well would result in less resources to distribute. The solution is to have a sufficient safety net that those that aren’t working, for whatever reason, still can live decently and derive a sense of worth from something or another. But, there has to still be strong motivations for people to work to live very well. The fact that some people don’t have to work definitely does not contribute to wealth creation. Re-distribution of wealth would solve that, but then it also eliminates reasons to get rich. In an ideal world, perhaps there would be a tax on wealth that is not growing sufficiently. I know that sounds odd, but it is a logical conclusion if the goal is to ensure that the wealthy don’t sit on their riches. For example, if you grow your holdings from 100,000 to 1M, that would not be taxed as much as if your wealth grew from 1M to 1.2M or 1B to 1.1B. The tax would be regressive for some people, because those that became wealthier would not be taxed as much as those that had moderate increases in wealth, but those that earned more due to real productivity should get to keep what they earned if we want to motivate people to be productive, which in the end means a bigger pie for everyone.
LikeLike