Without home equity it’s about 1.5 million.
This capitalism of yesterday was also a key part of protecting us from people being enrolled in totalitarian world views: people used to say "when trade doesn't cross borders, armies will". Now, with that monopoly/concentrated economy mindset, the thinking in the US has shifted to "we must cross borders to secure our interests".
Calling it communism is the kind of fucked up newspeak supporting less capitalism rather than more.
Planned economy as practiced by all vertically integrated monopolies may be the opposite of free market and the biggest attempt at communism was just that, but it's not the core idea of it.
Wojtyła had similar things to say, which surprises people, because during the Cold War, he was seen as staunchly anti-communist - which he was - and the triumphant general responsible for toppling it, but his critiques and warnings concerning liberalism/capitalism were conveniently ignored or overlooked.
[0] https://clunymedia.com/products/communism-and-the-conscience...
Capitalism is all about aligning incentives. Those of us who have experienced startups know just how important it is to have your employees aligned with the interests of the company in the form of equity grants. I've always personally wondered why this isn't more common outside of Silicon Valley. I respect the goal of researching these topics more deeply.
I actually experienced two successful startups (one YC funded even), stayed few years past acquisition in both, seen those rsu and such, and also seen communism with my eyes a little bit. I had some close relatives who paid party fees to soviet communist party for about half a century too, true believers if you can say so. Heard the stories, recognize the pitch.
It does sound very much familiar to me. Maybe RSU grants work a little better compared to having a trade union or a literal commune, more transactional maybe, more appropriate for inherently bourgeoise knowledge work as opposed to working on a steel mill, but I have a deep suspicion it's all the same both in intent and sometimes in the end results too.
The infrastructure for this is already there, it just needs to be rebranded and given a new narrative to make it acceptable for both the billionaire class. Instead of calling it taxes and social security, redistributive policies should be rebranded as patriotic profit sharing with the US government.
The US government's job would still be to pool resources to provide educated employees for companies to hire, well functioning transportation systems for companies to use, rule of law for companies to benefit from and pensions systems/basic healthcare for company employees/retirees.
In exchange for access to this US infrastructure, US and foreign corporations operating in the US would contribute to the US Freedom Dividend which will be shared across Americans to provide a baseline standard of living and allow them to invest to have skin in the game.
To get companies and wealthy individuals to willing participate in redistributive policies it seems we just need to avoid messaging it as punitive and/or as retribution for being successful (i.e. the Elizabeth Warren/AOC approach). We need to reframe it in language they speak - patriotism and profit sharing - and reframe them as the heroes for funding all the infrastructure and not the enemies.
I think there would be mind shift among the populace if they actually had more of a clear map as well from S&P500 companies winning and their own pocketbooks benefitting.
The idea that inequality will lead to lopsided political power hasn't yet been proven. If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump.
People who focus so much on inequality should rethink their priorities. Actually, living in a highly unequal economy is fine as long as:
1. Wealth is highly correlated to productivity
2. The poor have access to the necessities
I don't think anybody cares much about the inequality itself (if anything, most people to care actually benefit from it), but apparent positive feedback loop that converts more wealth into more political power into more wealth, which seems to undermine first caveat you mentioned and also apparent erosion of the second at the same time.
That's an interesting question. I haven't seen a poll of the richest US citizens. Which is odd, considering our general obsession with wealth. I suspect that, between Harris and Trump, the 100 richest would go for Trump.
Of course, Harris outspent Trump considerably which is another piece of evidence against the whole "money owns politics" story.
Putting more capital into more people's pockets is like putting more whips into more people's hands. It does not address the root cause of the problem.
also, the person's only source of wages isn't going to be specifically making sandwiches for just you, no?
To a certain extent, being able to rent a flat that someone else has built is a carrot -- a luxury -- but to a certain extent, anti-vagrancy laws mean that there are whips -- consequences -- that I may incur but not having a flat. Social norms are constructed, but they are still real.
What a childish and ignorant comment.
I love how people are still pretending like this didn't happen already. If you think there are going to be elections in 2028, you are gravely mistaken.
But as an aside, the issue isn't necessarily the wealth inequality, its the fact that the average person in US enjoys a relatively good life. This is why most of US didn't show up to vote in 2024. This creates a catch 22 situation, because people enjoy this level of life, and are going to elect leaders that will let them continue to live this way, not realizing that this is not sustainable. Which automatically makes them reject any leaders that are attempting to fix the problems that are slowly created, because those solutions means either less freedoms or less money in the short term (even if it means more money or more freedoms in the long term).
I dunno what the solution to this is really, and nobody does. You can argue that strong authoritarian control by the right coalition could fix this, but then the question becomes "how do make enough people believe that they don't deserve the freedoms that they had in order to put trust in that coalition"
My guess- US coordinates with China on the timing of Taiwan's takeover. Trump then argues he can't very well step down in the middle of a war.
Dictatorships can still have elections. Putin won his last election with 88% of the vote
Care to make it interesting?
Even then, if I win, the money is going to be pointless as US dollar will tank hard.
