Forum Post: 1% Science
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 20, 2011, 8:13 a.m. EST by ConfirmationBias
(0)
from Adelaide, SA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
“When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.”
Looks to me your eye's are be bigger than your stomach. Its just to much, we don't need more ipods, more cars, more houses, more and more greed. We need items that are are manufactured correctly with the best technology at the time. It would take years for a correctly manufactured item to deplete. Look at the military their equipment is proof of this.
The question to ask yourself is how much is enough? When will you ever fill comfortable? We have moved way beyond food, shelter and water. We have forgotten our identity. We have forgotten our brothers and sisters, our mother and father and the rest of the earthly inhabitants. All exchanged for what? More and more junk that will never bring back what was lost.
that's amusing, but not totally unexpected.
a lot of them are financial institutions, custodians, insurances
of course they own other companies. a share is a certificate of ownership!
if you bought a single share of the wilshire 5000, congratulations, you have just become an owner of 5000 companies.
Interesting, so why not just cap these companies at the 100 million mark and spread the remainder wealth to the people plus 10% to a world management fund to ensure the best living standards for all? That's true equality.
"There is enough for every mans need but not every mans greed" Gandhi
Simply - because that is a foolish idea.
foolish, how so? because it ensures equality for all?
You cannot ever ensure equality of outcome without forcing us all to the lowest common denominator. Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron? The short story provides a very clear example of the results of forced equality of outcome.
The consequences of this action are far too many for me to even begin describing in enough detail to do them justice.
One effect would be to destroy most companies. One hundred million in profits for a large company is nothing at all. Imagine apple capped at one hundred million in profits. How many ipods could they manufacture before they would have to stop before they hit the limit. How much would they be willing to put into development knowing that 1 good lawsuit or patent challenge would wipe out all the money they could earn for the next few years? How could they buy a new facility at the cost of 300 million when it means putting literally all of their profit into it for three years while doing nothing elsewhere?
I don't even want to get into how insurance and investments and banking and manufacturing and consulting would simply cease to be.
Obama's top contributors: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 Citigroup Inc $736,771 Morgan Stanley $512,232