idle speculation on money and power.
-
sv-wolf
- Site Supporter - Platinum
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:06 am
- Real Name: Richard
- Sex: Male
- Years Riding: 12
- My Motorcycle: Honda Fireblade, 2004: Suzuki DR650, 201
- Location: Hertfordshire, UK
Wow! A big, if improbable, question.
The way I see it -
Ownership of the greatest wealth is NOT vested entirely in the Western or developed world, although a lot of it is. Most cultures and nations have a class of those that are super rich and a class of those that are very poor. The Sultan of Brunei, or any successful Indonesian, Russian, Chinese or Congolese businessman is far more wealthy than the average inner city working class person putting a living together in the USA or Europe.
I forget the exact figures, but the staggering fact is that the wealthiest 150 people in the world own 70% of its wealth. The top 20% from all round the world own about 80%.
But the key to this, I think, is that there are two kinds of wealth: consumer wealth which we all have to some extent and which we need to carry on living, and productive wealth: the factories, equipment, railways, land, etc - the wealth that is used to produce more wealth.
The top 20% and probably the top 25% are owners of productive wealth. That's how they got to be so wealthy. Having private ownerswhip of productive wealth is the only way that you can accumulate. Because if you own productive wealth you can exploit people who don't by employing them, paying them less than the value of the goods they produce and sticking the remainder in your back pocket.
The primary purpose of the armed forces, the police, and the law is to protect the interests of those who are exceptionally wealthy, i.e. the owners of productive wealth. That's as true in Malaysia, Croatia and India as it is in the USA or the UK. Their role is not to protect them as individuals but collectively. So to answer your question, inheritance laws would pass the productive wealth of the 25% down to others who would continue the process of exploitation and impoverishment. Nothing would change.
Of course if you wiped out money, which is the medium which allows exploitation and wealth accumulation to take place then you would be in a whole different ball game...
The way I see it -
Ownership of the greatest wealth is NOT vested entirely in the Western or developed world, although a lot of it is. Most cultures and nations have a class of those that are super rich and a class of those that are very poor. The Sultan of Brunei, or any successful Indonesian, Russian, Chinese or Congolese businessman is far more wealthy than the average inner city working class person putting a living together in the USA or Europe.
I forget the exact figures, but the staggering fact is that the wealthiest 150 people in the world own 70% of its wealth. The top 20% from all round the world own about 80%.
But the key to this, I think, is that there are two kinds of wealth: consumer wealth which we all have to some extent and which we need to carry on living, and productive wealth: the factories, equipment, railways, land, etc - the wealth that is used to produce more wealth.
The top 20% and probably the top 25% are owners of productive wealth. That's how they got to be so wealthy. Having private ownerswhip of productive wealth is the only way that you can accumulate. Because if you own productive wealth you can exploit people who don't by employing them, paying them less than the value of the goods they produce and sticking the remainder in your back pocket.
The primary purpose of the armed forces, the police, and the law is to protect the interests of those who are exceptionally wealthy, i.e. the owners of productive wealth. That's as true in Malaysia, Croatia and India as it is in the USA or the UK. Their role is not to protect them as individuals but collectively. So to answer your question, inheritance laws would pass the productive wealth of the 25% down to others who would continue the process of exploitation and impoverishment. Nothing would change.
Of course if you wiped out money, which is the medium which allows exploitation and wealth accumulation to take place then you would be in a whole different ball game...
Hud
“Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.”
Percy Bysshe Shelley
SV-Wolf's Bike Blog
“Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.”
Percy Bysshe Shelley
SV-Wolf's Bike Blog