8 richest own as much as half of the World's population. Oxfam

[oldbadger]

This was shown on BBC Teletext this morning.

And it's going to get worse.
Digital Technology and Robotics are bringing redundancy to millions.
And yet some folks continue to despise the millions of people who need benefits money.
And jobs are being scrapped which could provide better customer service and care than robotics!
Crazy!

I am guessing that very very rich people, many who despise unemployed, could be costing countries as much through tax avoidance and evasion as all the benefits costs put together.

That's it. That's the subject matter.
Unleash the hounds of debate!

 

[Sunstone]

Conflict between the rich and the rest of society is as old as civilization and forms the core of most politics. Perhaps 80% of all politics is ultimately concerned with: How the wealth of nations is distributed, who gets it, and in what way do they get it.

As a general rule, whenever there is a huge disparity between the richest and poorest members of a society, an oligarchy or a dictatorship sooner or later arises, the freedoms and liberties of the common people are oppressed, and the middle class shrinks or is destroyed.

Thomas Piketty has analyzed the history of wealth concentration and distribution in developed countries over the past 250 years and notes that there are economic reasons wealth inequality has been increasing and will continue to increase in the future unless policy measures are implemented to prevent it.

The actual means whereby the wealth of a society is distributed, and the cold, hard realities that often result from its distribution, are routinely masked by misinformation, propaganda, and lies. This makes it difficult to generate the political will necessary to prevent a society from devolving into an oligarchy or a dictatorship, or to bring reforms to an existing oligarchy or dictatorship.

 

[buddhist]

They couldn't amass as much as they possess, to the detriment of the average individual, if it wasn't for the wretched Corporation.

 

[icehorse]

They couldn't amass as much as they possess, to the detriment of the average individual, if it wasn't for the wretched Corporation.

While only a partial solution, we should make "B" corporations more well known and pressure all corporations to convert to "B" corps.

 

[buddhist]

While only a partial solution, we should make "B" corporations more well known and pressure all corporations to convert to "B" corps.

How is the B corp any better?

 

[Sunstone]

How is the B corp any better?

"B Corporations", also known as "Benefit Corporations". Basically, a B Corporation can legally take into account many factors other than their shareholder's returns in making business decisions. For instance, they can decide to adopt a policy that benefits the environment, their workers, or society in general, even if that policy does not directly benefit their shareholders. A "normal" corporation can in at least some circumstances be sued for doing such.

I'm not sure how B Corporations in and of themselves would lessen the wealth inequality spoken about in the OP.

 

[buddhist]

"B Corporations", also known as "Benefit Corporations". Basically, a B Corporation can legally take into account many factors other than their shareholder's returns in making business decisions. For instance, they can decide to adopt a policy that benefits the environment, their workers, or society in general, even if that policy does not directly benefit their shareholders. A "normal" corporation can in at least some circumstances be sued for doing such.

I'm not sure how B Corporations in and of themselves would lessen the wealth inequality spoken about in the OP.

Are B-corporations obligated to maximize benefits to the environment/workers/society, or does the B-corp merely give them allowance to not prioritize maximum monetary returns?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are B-corporations obligated to maximize benefits to the environment/workers/society, or does the B-corp merely give them allowance to not prioritize maximum monetary returns?

No. I think the idea is that can at least conceptually take decisions which would otherwise reduce shareholder profits. They're able to, but not obligated to.

 

[Kirran]

I'm gonna say it - down with free market capitalism! Down with neoliberalism!

 

[Sunstone]

Are B-corporations obligated to maximize benefits to the environment/workers/society, or does the B-corp merely give them allowance to not prioritize maximum monetary returns?

In some states, B Corporations can be sued for failure to, say, take into account the public interest in their business decisions, although there has as of yet been no instance of a B Corporation being sued for that. They also must file annual reports explaining what they've been doing to fulfill their mission.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I'm gonna say it - down with free market capitalism! Down with neoliberalism!

So you are saying down with a system which would prevent the smallest inkling of a corporate power? Seems like reverse logic

 

[Sunstone]

I'm gonna say it - down with free market capitalism! Down with neoliberalism!

I'd preserve some small scale capitalism -- mom and pop stores, start ups, etc. But yeah, unregulated, free market capitalism, and neoliberal policies have got to go. At least they do if you want to preserve freedoms and liberties for the common people, to say nothing of once again creating a standard of living where people are not slaves to their jobs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Conflict between the rich and the rest of society is as old as civilization and forms the core of most politics. Perhaps 80% of all politics is ultimately concerned with: How the wealth of nations is distributed, who gets it, and in what way do they get it.

As a general rule, whenever there is a huge disparity between the richest and poorest members of a society, an oligarchy or a dictatorship sooner or later arises, the freedoms and liberties of the common people are oppressed, and the middle class shrinks or is destroyed.

Thomas Piketty has analyzed the history of wealth concentration and distribution in developed countries over the past 250 years and notes that there are economic reasons wealth inequality has been increasing and will continue to increase in the future unless policy measures are implemented to prevent it.

The actual means whereby the wealth of a society is distributed, and the cold, hard realities that often result from its distribution, are routinely masked by misinformation, propaganda, and lies. This makes it difficult to generate the political will necessary to prevent a society from devolving into an oligarchy or a dictatorship, or to bring reforms to an existing oligarchy or dictatorship.

One thing I've noticed people tend to not pay much attention to is advertising. Many people doubt it, but the more companies poor into monetarily, they more money they get in return. Prices get artificially inflated, and the customer ends up paying for the celebrity endorsements, the flashy packaging, and the studies that let corporations learn how to prey upon children, insecurities, and the vulnerable.

They couldn't amass as much as they possess, to the detriment of the average individual, if it wasn't for the wretched Corporation.

Most people really just collect and horde junk. And then throw it away, donate it, resell it, or whatever. Actually, if we all had less junk overall, it's likely we could have more of what we actually want if we aren't all buying up so much useless junk.

 

[metis]

Conflict between the rich and the rest of society is as old as civilization and forms the core of most politics. Perhaps 80% of all politics is ultimately concerned with: How the wealth of nations is distributed, who gets it, and in what way do they get it.

As a general rule, whenever there is a huge disparity between the richest and poorest members of a society, an oligarchy or a dictatorship sooner or later arises, the freedoms and liberties of the common people are oppressed, and the middle class shrinks or is destroyed.

Thomas Piketty has analyzed the history of wealth concentration and distribution in developed countries over the past 250 years and notes that there are economic reasons wealth inequality has been increasing and will continue to increase in the future unless policy measures are implemented to prevent it.

The actual means whereby the wealth of a society is distributed, and the cold, hard realities that often result from its distribution, are routinely masked by misinformation, propaganda, and lies. This makes it difficult to generate the political will necessary to prevent a society from devolving into an oligarchy or a dictatorship, or to bring reforms to an existing oligarchy or dictatorship.

Kudos on your absolutely top-shelf post. As Alan Greenspan said to a congressional committee about 8 years ago, the disparity of wealth is the single greatest threat to our country.

 

[buddhist]

No. I think the idea is that can at least conceptually take decisions which would otherwise reduce shareholder profits. They're able to, but not obligated to.

In some states, B Corporations can be sued for failure to, say, take into account the public interest in their business decisions, although there has as of yet been no instance of a B Corporation being sued for that. They also must file annual reports explaining what they've been doing to fulfill their mission.

Essentially, there isn't a huge difference between B and C corps then, except that B's are allowed to do more than C's. Don't they both shield their employees from personal liability?

 

[buddhist]

Most people really just collect and horde junk. And then throw it away, donate it, resell it, or whatever. Actually, if we all had less junk overall, it's likely we could have more of what we actually want if we aren't all buying up so much useless junk.

Yes, there's a maximalist mentality among consumers, and that's also a problem. That problem also motivates a few to start Corporations too.

 

[Sunstone]

Essentially, there isn't a huge difference between B and C corps then, except that B's are allowed to do more than C's. Don't they both shield their employees from personal liability?

Well, you can sue a C corporation for not maximizing shareholder value. You can't do that with a B corporation. And you can sue a B corporation (in some states) for not doing enough to fulfill its mission to the community, workers, environment, etc. I'd call those pretty big differences.

Yes, both corporations shield their employees from personal liability.

 

[buddhist]

Well, you can sue a C corporation for not maximizing shareholder value. You can't do that with a B corporation. And you can sue a B corporation (in some states) for not doing enough to fulfill its mission to the community, workers, environment, etc. I'd call those pretty big differences.

Wouldn't you agree that this is one reason why there aren't many B corps? Less interest from potential shareholders who generally look to maximize their profits?

Yes, both corporations shield their employees from personal liability.

This part is the biggest issue I have with Corporations.

 

[Sunstone]

While only a partial solution, we should make "B" corporations more well known and pressure all corporations to convert to "B" corps.

How would B corporations be a solution to wealth inequality?

 

[Sunstone]

Wouldn't you agree that this is one reason why there aren't many B corps? Less interest from potential shareholders who generally look to maximize their profits?

Perhaps, but B corporations are also a relatively new thing. It can take time for things to catch on.