Let us suppose that wealth continues to accrete to the wealthiest 1-2% of Americans at the present rate (there is no guarantee that it will). Much of this wealth is in land, but not all. Each individual (and family)l makes choices on how to accumulate, and distribute his/their wealth, and what works today might not have much value in the future.
Land that sells for a considerable sum today (because a group of people put a higher value on it than in the past) may not have much value in a future world in which arable land might have more value than land that provides a
You lost me with Ford at $55 per share...after that my company's drug testing policy kept me from intrepreting your future outlook.
and not really doing much research.
It shows.
Off topic, but I feel Wikipedia is one of the most reliable websites as long as you aren't researching controversial topics like politics and religion.
In this case it is correct. Gates was right at $100 billion in the late 90s. I actually was reading about him in Forbes a couple weeks ago, and that article also mentioned it.
Old South End - three are some plausible scenarios in your rant, but I don't quite get it. Are you advising that we revert to farming or embrace liberal government programs?
Every generation has it's own seeds of destruction/correction that can be adressed or ignored.
Depending on your political view and social standing, liberal government programs either solve or exascerbate the problems.
There have been poor and rich people throughout history, yet the planet has survived. Untold millions have suffered through history. Millions lack the staples necessary to foster life.
If the most altruistic monied person did the best he could to re-distribute his wealth to those who's suffering could be alleived, untold millions would still suffer.
I choose to do what I can and elect not to dwell on the matter. This approach has worked well for me.
I was writing this pretty quickly, and not really doing much research. I'm of a generation that saw automotive companies (rather than .coms) as the yardstick of wealth generation. I just thought Ford was still "rich". I have done a little research since then. If $50,000,000 worth of stock was bought on Jan. 2, 1970 (at over $42 a share) it would be worth $295,094,000+ as of Apr. 2, 2007 (according to the Ford web site). Even though the price per share is lower now, there were splits (if the stock was held).
That doesn't really save my face. I should have looked at some other companies, and used some realistic stock prices, and volumes to describe the above scenario.
I also wish to correct an error concerning Bill Gates wealth. On Wikipaedia I learned that sometime during 1999 he was briefly worth more than $100 billion but dropped to around $50 after the "dot.com" bubble burst, and has stayed around there until 2006. The figure of $13 billion is just a fictional number as you probably guess.
I would prefer liberal government programs, but that doesn't presume that they would work. Even during the high-tide of liberalism (I would believe the Kennedy-Johnson years in the Executive Branch) there was a strong minority of "conservative" voters. They felt that these programs didn't work.
What I am trying to get at with my "rant" is that no matter how extreme the "political" solution, it carries its own seeds of destruction ,or correction, depending on your view of history. Perhaps I am wrong, but I felt at the time that our glee over the "elimination" of the "Evil
Empire" was rather short-sighted. We went from facing a "rational" enemy to one created in the image of God. We went from facing an enemy with thousands of nuclear weapons (but the belief in a future in this world) to an enemy with only dozens of weapons (but a belief that their use will send him to Paradise). Radical Islam should wither and pass away if a Caliphate actually comes to power (look at the caliphs from the past), but will we give ourselves enough time for human greed to triumph over faith?
The concentration of wealth carries it own seeds of destruction, but will that bring untold suffering to millions while the "correction" works itself out?
But please remember: Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for research...
Until the lion writes his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter (African proverb)