Attacking "Billionaires" is easy to do, but its the wrong target. A "wealth tax" will probably make a pretty good bandaid, but for a real solution here, we need to think harder about fixing the root cause - that skimming strategies are dominant in the first place. In other worse, say we pass a high tax. Great. Except it doesn't change the best action for people(rich or poor): make money by skimming. So now instead of having an unequal society of skimmers, we end up with a more equal society of skimmers.
Way too much capital right now is devoted to skimming: marketing/advertising, legal/accounting, real estate, and finance have ballooned. The largest tech companies in the world are ad companies. Lawyers and accountants spent significant time on tax avoidance. Real estate is run on speculation and bubbles. Finance is now more about about the short term rather than long term value investing. It didn't used to be the case, but in the modern world, the margins on these departments make them better ways to spend our time and resources to get money. I wish I had a mental model of things good enough to suggest what the right fix would be, but as a random guess, I'd rather see taxes on the industries above than a tax on billionaires.
Edit: in retrospect this rant went overboard. Wealth tax/higher taxes on extreme wealth are probably still needed as part of the plan. Easy to get carried away with rants lol!
If you think they are skimming money, then there has to be a way to offer the same services cheaper (without the skimming). So instead of complaining, do it. What's your excuse?
Of course crooks exist. Most people are not crooks, though. And especially the professionals you mention may have problems to persist. Like the shoddy dentist will be busy with lawsuits presumably.
I still prefer those "private crooks" to people feeding on government money (not meaning people on social security, but people in useless jobs paid for with taxpayer money).
Of course psychopaths exists. Most people are not psychopaths, though. And especially the CEOs you mention may have problems to persist.
I still prefer those "CEO psychopaths" to people feeding on government money (people in useless jobs paid for with taxpayer money).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/201...
I personally think that the "successful pyschopaths" meme is also way overblown, but I don't really know. I think being a psychopath is actually a deficiency, not a super power. Also in business I think people who help other people tend to be more successful overall than the stereotypical ruthlessly selfish people.
Edit: I think you added the link later on, that cites 21% of CEOs to be psychopaths? I would wait for replication on that one. It reminds me of another thing I read where reading about economics allegedly turned people into psychopaths (which is of course bullshit - just because you learned about rational decisions, as perhaps most CEOs do at some point, doesn't mean you are a psychopath). I suspect the questionnaire or the study they used to determine the "21%" number may in fact be motivated by politics.
What if they are skimming money precisely because they made it difficult to offer the same services cheaper?
The only institution that can do that is government via regulations (like who can practice law or become a dentist). I agree that there are some (many?) fishy regulations like that. But that is on the government, that is, socialism. Only free markets can guarantee fair prices.
No, it isn't. For intelligence, in adulthood, it clearly isn't. For harder to measure skills, current estimates are at around half and half, but the error is mostly in the environment category. So much general-population variance is genetic (and that's only amplified at the highest skill levels - you need great 'cultural and social influence', but also great genes, lol)
> Did they try to marry their own? Naturally - out of snobbery and opportunism if for no other reason.
fun fact, the trait that shows the most assortative mating is intelligence. curious!
> I used to live in an upper middle class area, and a worrying number of the people were very polished thieves.
and I know a worrying number of lower class thieves. '20% of rich people are grifters' doesn't impune rich people as a whole, any more than Tony the crack money launderer impunes poors.
I used to live in an upper middle class area, and a worrying number of the people were very polished thieves. They spent an unholy amount of time fighting over inheritances with other family members and over property boundaries with neighbours. When they worked - inevitably as land owners, landlords, upmarket real estate agents, investment advisors, lawyers, company directors, horse breeders, and so on - they'd always pad their bills and expenses, inflate their prices, and cheat on their taxes.
Were they "successful" - in the sense of being very comfortably off? Of course they were.
Did they try to marry their own? Naturally - out of snobbery and opportunism if for no other reason.
Were they admirable human beings or truly productive members of society? Not noticeably. Between the drink and drug problems, the predictable infidelities and ensuing dramas, and the polished and educated facade hiding feral greed and entitlement, they looked good from the outside - not so much from the inside.
If you don't own shares/stocks to any significant extent your labour goes to supporting these people. They make a lot of money from "investments" and pretend this is a glorious, noble, and risky social service. In fact they're simply skimming money from the top of the economy into their own pockets - effectively wasting it when it could be put to work doing something innovative for future generations.