"Were in a situation were the top 5% odd own as much as the bottom 95 % . That will have to reset at some point"
That's because they own the means of production, e.g. land, not because they have a big vault full of cash.
No matter what means of currency you have, it won't change the fact that they a small percentage own 70% of the land in the UK,
Also those 'rich lists' etc are always really flawed.... they have people allegedly worth billions in them who would probably struggle to write a cheque for $50m, because often its 'equity' based on the market cap of their companies.
But of course if they started a sell off of equity.... the value of the shares would drop dramatically. E.g. Jeff Bezos is allegedly worth $95.7bn, but almost all the value of his Amazon shares.
Is there a business large enough to buy Amazon for $430 billion? He could only convert that into cash by putting sell orders in with wall street, in dribs and drabs, and when the CEO and majority shareholder of a business starts selling off his shares... what do you think happens to the price? It tanks of course....
Same actually applies to somebody who owns 1,000 properties in the same town actually. Just by virtue of reducing competition they are increasing the price, what happens if they try and have a sell off? Lots of supply = falling price.
A rich list of people with the most cash in their bank would be interesting, but then you could argue that it would be a list of unwise rich people.... wealthy people are usually too smart to hold too much cash when it could be working for them in real estate or on the markets.
I think these Corbynite style claims of x% owning x% are highly flawed, when much of that wealth is always hypothetical.
I think power through control of means of production is the true wealth. Somebody owning $1 billion worth of Twitter is much poorer than somebody who owns $1 billion worth of fertile agricultural land, in my opinion.
That's because they own the means of production, e.g. land, not because they have a big vault full of cash.
No matter what means of currency you have, it won't change the fact that they a small percentage own 70% of the land in the UK,
Also those 'rich lists' etc are always really flawed.... they have people allegedly worth billions in them who would probably struggle to write a cheque for $50m, because often its 'equity' based on the market cap of their companies.
But of course if they started a sell off of equity.... the value of the shares would drop dramatically. E.g. Jeff Bezos is allegedly worth $95.7bn, but almost all the value of his Amazon shares.
Is there a business large enough to buy Amazon for $430 billion? He could only convert that into cash by putting sell orders in with wall street, in dribs and drabs, and when the CEO and majority shareholder of a business starts selling off his shares... what do you think happens to the price? It tanks of course....
Same actually applies to somebody who owns 1,000 properties in the same town actually. Just by virtue of reducing competition they are increasing the price, what happens if they try and have a sell off? Lots of supply = falling price.
A rich list of people with the most cash in their bank would be interesting, but then you could argue that it would be a list of unwise rich people.... wealthy people are usually too smart to hold too much cash when it could be working for them in real estate or on the markets.
I think these Corbynite style claims of x% owning x% are highly flawed, when much of that wealth is always hypothetical.
I think power through control of means of production is the true wealth. Somebody owning $1 billion worth of Twitter is much poorer than somebody who owns $1 billion worth of fertile agricultural land, in my opinion.
