You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
The Wealth Fund Collective: A Simple Fix for Our Massive Inequality Problem
2017-12-02
[NYT] Everyone knows that we are again living in a Gilded Age.

More controversial is the question of what should be done about it. We seem stuck in the same policy equilibrium we have been in for decades, with conservatives denying that there is a problem and pushing policies that would make it even worse, liberals emphasizing the need for education and skills development, and leftists pushing for a unionized labor market and social-democratic welfare state.

Some of these ideas are good ones, which would make life better for vulnerable people. But they’d do little to directly target inequality in our society or to capture all the benefits that economic fairness brings.

The solution is simpler than it seems. There’s a tried and tested way, within the system we have now, of giving everyone a share in the investment returns now hoarded by the wealthy. It’s called a social wealth fund, a pool of investment assets in some ways like the giant index or mutual funds already popular with retirement savings accounts or pension funds, but one owned collectively by society as a whole. One that paid dividends not to the few, or even just to the shrinking middle class lucky enough to have their savings invested, but to everyone.

It may be our best chance to stop a decades-long trend of rising wealth inequality that has only accelerated since the Great Recession. According to new data released by the Federal Reserve, the collapse of the housing bubble and the ensuing financial crisis caused the net worth of virtually all families, rich and poor, to drop sharply between 2007 and 2010. But during the post-2010 economic recovery, the fortunes of the wealthiest grew rapidly while nearly everyone else’s lagged behind.

The wealth of the top 1 percent increased by an average of $4.9 million over the past decade, while the average holdings of the bottom 99 percent declined by about $4,500. Wealth inequality is now the highest it has been since the Federal Reserve began collecting this kind of data in 1983. A full account of just how bad things have gotten is difficult to wrap one’s mind around. In 2016, according to my calculations, the top 1 percent had an average wealth of $26.6 million, while the net worth of everyone in the bottom third combined was less than zero (because of a mixture of low accumulated savings and high debt).

The stress this puts on our society is hard to overstate, and though recognition of our country’s grossly unequal condition has grown in recent years, few have proposed credible ways of turning things around. That’s where a social wealth fund comes in.
Posted by:Besoeker

#10  The Saudis have shown us the most effective way of wealth redistribution.
Posted by: phil_b   2017-12-02 17:45  

#9  Oh, I'm totally in favor of this -- provided I'm in charge of where the money goes and determining from it shall be extracted.

Let's start by taking all university endowment funds, then all of Carlos Slim, George Sauron, Jeff Bezor, and Mark Zuckersperg's money so I can get me some boats'n'hoes.

Don't worry; I promise to be a fair and benevolent dictator. Trust me.
Posted by: charger   2017-12-02 14:29  

#8  Idiotic. After two decades only 1/5 of those in the bottom 20% will still be there without aid, the rest having moved up — some all the way up to the top 20%. And likewise, most of those currently in the top 20% will have fallen to lower income categories. But giving the government, or a pseudo-government entity, vast sums of money to play with only guarantees those funds will evaporate while distorting every corner of the economy. Think government investment in renewable energy, only on a larger scale.

And don’t forget that the housing bubble was the result of federal government distortions of the market, harming most those it purported to help.

As the top 1% get wealthier — usually, like Bill Gates, by creating new products that people want to buy, or by investing (giving money) in others who create new products people want to buy — they either spend the money (creating jobs), invest the money (creating jobs), save the money (allowing banks to loan it out, so that it is spent by others creating jobs), or they give it away as targeted charity, helping those at the bottom more effectively than a govenment “wealth fund” possibly could.
Posted by: trailing wife   2017-12-02 14:05  

#7  I say it looks like broccoli and I say it stinks.
Posted by: Shipman   2017-12-02 13:41  

#6  "You didn't earn that investment return..."
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2017-12-02 12:12  

#5  Sounds like communism to me. And besides that, every time you get the government involved in a scheme like this the inevitable result is graft.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2017-12-02 11:38  

#4  NYT projection. Meant "Gelded Age"
Posted by: Frank G   2017-12-02 11:17  

#3  Everyone knows that we are again living in a Gilded Age.

Ask the people from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin who voted for Trump if they consider it a 'Gilded Age'. The oxygen must be really light up there in the NYT offices.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2017-12-02 09:24  

#2   It’s called a social wealth fund, a pool of investment assets

And that pool is filled with what....how?

Whom is going to control said pool, and how will they be policed?

What are you going to do about the effort inequality or the intelligence inequality or any of the other inequalities that "plague" society?

Same Socialist Sh*t Different damn day.
Posted by: AlanC   2017-12-02 08:57  

#1  More for burrowing-rats to steal?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2017-12-02 08:12  

00:00