

The 1% are the very best destroyers of wealth the world has ever seen - bootload
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers

======
bootload
_"... The findings of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of a Nobel
economics prize, are devastating to the beliefs that financial high-fliers
entertain about themselves. He discovered that their apparent success is a
cognitive illusion. ..."_

Daniel Kahneman (2002, Nobel prize in Economics): ~
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman)

Gini coefficient/ratio/index (statistical measure of income
distribution/wealth inequity): ~
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient)

------
jchonphoenix
Sigh... These articles need to stop. People don't seem to realize that there's
a larger difference between the 1% and the 0.5% than the 1% and the 99% in
America.

Also, nobody seems to understand the difference between wealth and earnings.
1% wealth isn't the same as 1% earnings and is a hell of a lot better. I
forget the stat but a surprising number of people in the US like 25% hit 1%
earnings at some point in their life due to some event.

~~~
zurn
Your point has some merit, the dramatic breakaway is really in the 0.1% or so,
but that's only a problem with the title and not the article. It's not talking
about the 1% in America. Eg in the first instance it's talking about "senior
managers and chief executives from leading British businesses", later "Branko
Milanovic tries to discover who was the richest person who has ever lived"
etc.

The only place with 1% is where they compare the income increase of the US top
1% vs the bottom fifth - yeah, there he should have used a smaller slice from
the top (and the numbers would have been more dramatic). But maybe there
aren't statistics available at that granularity, since he resorted to using
the top 10% for the UK.

------
mschuster91
> Chief executives now behave like dukes, extracting from their financial
> estates sums out of all proportion to the work they do or the value they
> generate, sums that sometimes exhaust the businesses they parasitise.

Biggest problem: some time in the future, this cash will inevitably reenter
the financial system. As long as the cash stays locked, no problem there (as
the central banks compensate by printing money)... but e.g. a "spending run"
of a couple of billionaires in one year certainly has firepower.

Always remember Soros and the British Crown.

------
RichardFord
Blah..blah..blah, "the rich are psychopaths"...blah, blah.

This is just more classwarfare, neo-marxist drivel from a predictable rag like
the guardian

~~~
bootload
_"... Blah..blah..blah, ... This is just more ..."_

Care to explain why?

(reminder to self: comments from accounts 77 day old account & Karma of 12,
require higher degree of scrutiny)

------
kristianp
Wow, only one paragraph article of this actually talks about wealth
destruction. It starts off as a very ordinary article about corporate
psychopaths, then half way through veers off into discussion about wealth
inequality.

This kind of article does more harm than good for those who want to reduce
inequality.

------
11thEarlOfMar
There are quite a few immediately available 'financial high-flyers' among the
YC alumni. I'd venture that they've all achieved 1% status much more through
intelligence, creativity, commitment and resourcefulness than by birthright,
luck or psychopathy. This is a pretty cynical piece.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Monbiot is a rabid anti-capitalist; see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot#Activism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot#Activism)
...

"[the climate change campaign] is a campaign not for abundance but for
austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of
all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves."

Bear in mind, he's describing something he _supports_ , here. At least he's
honest.

------
duncan_bayne
Only Monbiot could leap from the - correct, repeatable - conclusions of the
study he first cites to the Marxist claptrap with which he concludes. Drivel,
utter drivel, and fuelled by hatred.

~~~
bootload
_"... leap from the - correct, repeatable - conclusions of the study he first
cites to the Marxist claptrap with which he concludes. Drivel, utter drivel,
and fuelled by hatred. ..."_

It's not marxist to suggest there's a problem between senior executives in
corporations who are rewarded and reward themselves for failures (Finance &
banking GFC) & unwanted externalities (Energy & C02 emissions) or illegality
(Media & phone tapping).

I don't think Monbiot is implying founders or creators of tech business
automatically fall into that category. Though given the some of the problems
in Startup land (female founders face, tech companies colluding on workers and
corporate data gathering) I wouldn't say technology companies are immune. I
understand your skepticism of Monboit but he's not a 'Jason Ogle'.

