That is an effect that Marx has already predicted.It is called concentration. Large strong companies buy smaller interesting companies, which makes them increasingly bigger and stronger and no new competitors can emerge. You see that for example very nice in the tech sector. You have Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Amazon. No one can catch up with those five: The winner takes it all.
This kind of monopolies must be broken up.Also, through taxes, the small group of Empires must be picked, so that their money can be redistributed. However, We live in neoliberal times and the Possesive class is sacred. Beware, if people like Rutte say that a certain policy costs jobs, they actually mean that it is at the expense of profit. This profit has not been invested in new jobs for a long time, but it goes to shareholders as far as possible.
They are those who do not determine: ‘ Determine the system, determine what ‘ elected representatives ‘ do, threaten to run away or worse employment figures, to invest in capital or elsewhere.
Everyone, really everyone dances to their pipes, and just count that they are good for themselves.
Or did you really think you were living in something like a “democracy”?Whether that really any-ism or other school booklets wisdom [even the economic but something of doing with what really takes place?
If the “big capital” is too abstract, or if you have less followed how and by which 2008 took place, please consider the Subparticle Project development: International investors determine what is being built with eager housing distress in Stand [their chicken with the golden eggs and know very well with their extreme gains to find Panama and the Cayman Islands.Really.
Everything that is called “political” or “government” or “supervision”, completely powerless looking, if they do not facilitate all the development activities to the millimeter, afraid otherwise no houses and offices to have, or that they are put down at “the neighbours” .
No, national boundaries have existed for a long time, and local policies are merely fed from the tips that “the big money” still wishes to add “the masses”.
Knowing terribly well where the boundary of the line lies without breaking it (and by trying it out: see e.g. the banking behaviour: so far that you will be whistled a little bit back, and then continue again, the border always a very small Little further laying).
And no, this is not a previous-century left-right story, or a perception from a politically colored spectacle: the schoolbooks really do not apply anymore, the-ismen are finally dead.”We all” do not reign anymore, everyone is bought (and squeezed out). Look beyond your nose for a long time, in this case: further than that training, beyond national boundaries, beyond the now myths about “democracy” and far beyond the details of systems: “They” are those who “sell”, “we” are the ones who buy [ Enabled by 24/7 personally targeted marketing. Whether it’s sex toys, ideas or fears.
And “They” keep all the money.
[And even let the armies defend their interests/support their expansion drift
(The reverse evidence is already in your question/statistics if you don’t believe the above)
tnx for ATA
The Group of Empires is not smaller, but only larger.
However, with 1 million euro you can do a lot less nowadays than in 1990 due to inflation.
Then the question arises: “Who is rich”.
More interesting is to look at wealth inequality, that is: how many possess the rich in relation to the poor.
There you see in the longer term (and with the necessary fluctuations) a decrease in the equity inequality.
What you do see is that the top 1% holds a lot and thus also makes a lot of profit, with the result that the total assets of that group increase more strongly than the other groups.
And that’s good for the rest of the country again.
This group pays 90% of all taxes on income and capital in the Netherlands.
Since the years ‘ 80 last century, income and wealth inequality has increased.This concludes just about every economic inquiry into inequality and it testifies to intellectual honesty to acknowledge this wholeheartedly. Whether or not deliberately fog over this observation according to the most stringent scientific criteria, is misleading and raises the suspicion of having a hidden agenda.
What are the causes of this data is less obvious.The increase in world trade, technological advances that make certain groups more productive than others or a combination of both, may be just a few presumptions.
In my opinion, there is indeed something inherent in capitalism that explains why inequality must indeed increase, but I disagree with the Marxist declaration that this is based on the exploitation of the working class which allows the capitalist Profit from the gain because despite the social legislation that protects workers from exploitation, inequality has nevertheless increased.
In my opinion, the increased concentration of wealth must be attributed to the fact that the rich can always get the best currants from the porridge to themselves.Some empires, however, do not get the best currants out of the PAP and become poorer again.
I would like to illustrate this as follows: Imagine you have 2 types of companies, those that get 5% return on the capital deployed and those that reach 10%.Traditionally economic theory assumes that the price of companies of the first type falls to 50% of the carrying amount in such a way that the return on the capital deployed of the 2 types of companies becomes equal. But this theory departs from the assumption that everyone has equal access to the capital market. However, if there is already an inequality in the investors ‘ available savings, it is clear that the richer investors will always be able to invest in a higher return than the poorer ones: the few empires will only Investing in companies with a 10% return on the initial capital invested but will only have to pay a price that the many poorer investors cannot afford, they will not have to offer so much against the few other empires than the Poor investors against each other. In perfectly working capital markets where everyone can bid on equal terms, there will be no difference in efficiency, but the capital is always limited and is not always accessible in any percentages, this causes an advantage for those which can already offer more.