whether it be from hunger, the inability to obtain surgery or whatever, a smaller number than the total amount over a billion in the hands of the world's richest? That used to not be the case. But I think it may be now. I don't think even hardcore capitalists can justify that state of affairs even if fixing it requires what some would call "theft".

David, I honestly cannot figure out what your question is???

maybe its me so I will see what others reply but I 'think' you are asking 'do the problems exceed the capital that could be taken from the uber rich'?

It's a pretty normal "late capitalism" state of affairs. The Marx-adjacent idea is that the ultra-wealthy keep hoarding money, and income inequality continues to unsustainably expand, with the idea that, eventually, a breaking point is reached where either the 99% will revolt and (ideally) destroy the system and build a more equitable one back up, or the oligarchs become so untouchable that they become a version of a king in a feudal state (which reminds me, how is that Amazon company town doing?). The latter seems much more likely, as people are just too beaten down trying to live day-to-day to find the energy to revolt, which, as I understand it, is where I differ from Marx.

I personally assume that capitalism will continue to creak along for a few more decades, until some ecological crisis/crises throws everything into chaos, things as essential as water and habitable lands become scarce (and get hoarded by the oligarchs), and we have Mad Max-style anarchy for a bit until intelligent life on Earth ends. I think that's how many intelligent species around the Universe burn themselves out.

In the shorter term; to address the OP, the answer is obvious. We need to take all these largely ill-gotten gains from the ultra-wealthy and spend it on healthcare, housing, etc. etc. Jack up the estate tax and other inheritance and wealth taxes. Stop throwing more money at the military than the next 30 countries combined do with theirs. These two things alone would probably get us there. I mean, 100% of prominent Republicans and 90% of Democrats would oppose such a thing (as is expected, as they directly benefit from the current state of affairs), so there's no political will to enact these economic changes, but in theory it's an easy game.

But really, who the hell knows, it's a fool's game to predict how our world will look decades from now; maybe, just as things are collapsing, Elon Iron Man Musk and his Rick and Morty Mars Rocket will deus ex machina us to safety on a new planet. That's probably about as likely as anything else.

Sorry David , your strategy is too opaque .
I do not really understand your question .

Any wealth outside the bell curve is theft. Taxing the rich is just recovery.

Hypothetically if an otherwise productive worker cannot work because their arm is broken and they cannot afford to treat the injury. If they could treat the injury it would cost $x and they would produce $y more after treatment resulting in an additional $z taxation adjusted for timevalue. If $x is greater than $z the answer is very clear. This is true for things like education as well with a longer term outlook. Definitionally this is the job of the state and is basic economics as well.

Some people believe that it is a fantasy land for you to expect them to pay for anything including things that would have a greater cost over time. There are some words to these people and they include uneducated and misinformed. Don't run your country, house or business based on what they think, no matter however smart they may be in other matters, or how persuasive their arguments might be. It's just basic deductive reasoning.

Where does the bell curve end and become theft as in regards to a yearly income?

We can designate that wherever we want, and it doesn't have to be a bell curve. It's a political determination that comes after the prior determination that any person can only be so much more deserving than another. Bezos wouldn't be on any such curve.

I don’t think you get how a bell curve works.

I can't for the life of me figure what it would mean to tax wealth that is "outside the bell curve."

Nor do I understand how all wealth outside a certain range constitutes theft. I obviously understand the argument for taxing the rich more. But do you honestly think of Lebron James as a thief?

Okay, lets ditch the bell curve. What's the new politcal determination amount that came after the prior determination amount that solves the problem that any person is no longer so much more deserving than another?

Any limit is going to be arbitrary, there isn't some magic objective value that everybody will agree on.

Presumably, most people, except some very weird and medieval-loving monarchists, would think that one person shouldn't own everything. Presumably most people, except some very strange ideological purists, would think it is unfortunate that some people own nothing or next to nothing.

Somewhere on that scale, things start to get problematic for most.

Personally, I think it is stupid that some people have personal wealth to rival nations, while others die or severely suffer from lack of resources that is available right next to them. You don't have to be a communist in favor of radical re-distribution to take issue with economic systems that so greatly slants distribution.

+1.

Why not just apply a Nash equilibrium (gto solution) to the problem of distribution of wealth ?
Pretty clear to me the market can’t do it by Itself , guess it is up to the government to elaborate the pie distribution but then, government just need to get the fack out of the market once the pie distribution is in place .

Perhaps this post is naive and slightly off-topic, but I think it is stupid that there isn't some basic minimum level of shelter for anyone in the U.S. without a home. Basically, a clean bed, plumbing and heating. Obvious considerations are that too many people might opt for that type of living and the economy would be greatly damaged, or the cost would be too great, which I don't believe. But perhaps there could be a max number of beds available or number of homeless housed, such that people have to get rotated in and out if necessary. Of course some microcosm of this might exist in certain areas already (although the recent John Oliver episode on homelessness seems to suggest otherwise?), but I think it should be large-scale, federally funded if necessary (presumably so) and widely available.

Even if in an individual case someone is genuinely homeless on account of their "laziness", as a common stereotype goes, I'd still rather this person be able to sleep indoors in a room with sufficient heat, and plumbing while I go to work until I retire and live my modestly (compared to many Americans, according to me) materialistic life, and hopefully not be bitter about it. Also, as we well know, many homeless people actually are working, or trying to find work and just can't make ends meet in their specific situation.

And hypothetically if you could magically shave off excess billions of the uber rich in America to easily cover the cost, I think that would be great and they obviously wouldn't suffer AT ALL for it save for some bitterness about it. Anything over a 100 million (just random guess number) for one's personal pleasures or pride or whatever is pretty excessive. Just a few million of completely disposable spending money in my mind is already absurd. Honestly wouldn't know what to do except not work my ho-hum job and do some fancy stuff here and there or something?

That's a tough question. Lebron is, for all practical purposes, singularly great at basketball and he generates a huge amount of transfers toward his organization and appears to do so by way of merit.

I don't have a great response, but I would view Lebron as a meritorious earner within an organization or within a complex of organizations (sneaker companies, media companies etc) which benefit from monopolies and built in advantages and which have resulted in accumulations which would be outliers in a politically determined model or curve. Lebron isn't stealing just like some 10k a night hooker isn't stealing from some sheik paying for her. She's earning it, but the Sheik didn't. All the Sheiks gotta go.

A YouTube video I kinda like is of this soccer player, presumably the best in the world, who dresses up like a soccer bum and starts doing some tricks in a public square. He is doing his best stuff, all amazing, and trying to get people to play with him. Despite his skill nobody is lining up to watch and most seem embarrassed to be approached by him. Eventually the rouse is spoiled when he signs an autograph and a huge crowd starts to form. This illustrates that what Lebron does and the demand to see him do it is very much a product with a lot of investment behind it, not some pure thing that has inherent appeal coming from Lebron himself (though it is marketed as such).

Once you have a model of what human beings can contribute and what they can deserve at the outer limits, and you have an amount from which it is designated fair game to redistribute, there are different schemes that come to mind. My preference would be to try to pin it not to a happiness index but to an opportunity index. I think most people want to live in a world where everyone can fulfill their potential. That's not only good for the individual, but we all benefit when people are allowed to advance humanity or save it through their contributions. Of course, the ideal of everyone living up to their potential is pie in the sky. But we could give people the infrastructure and the resource prerequisites such that an arbitrary number of people believed they had a realistic chance to reach their potential (even if they didn't actually reach it). We could set that percentage at what some study might suggest is the percentage of people who would naturally be willing and able to take advantage. And we could invest resources differentially based on sub groups of people who might have particular resource deficiencies.

So say that number is 80%. We take the extra money above and beyond what we know are the limits of human talent (like Bezos is a talented guy at the far end of the spectrum but let's be honest he is a retail merchant who has made no individual contribution equivalent to his holdings) and we invest it towards factors we know will promote the realization of human potential to a level such that 80% of people feel satisfied with their opportunity. This would obviously include health care and other kinds of benefits which would provide the bare minimum needed to compete somewhat fairly in a market economy.

That was a good episode - of course Oliver is only going to scratch the surface in 15 minutes, but he hit on a lot of good points. And you are correct, the episode did suggest otherwise - the situation he described in shelters certainly isn't good.

I’m convinced a Ubi would be good. We have too many systems where the people who need help the most fall through the cracks or go to jail. If the rules were everyone gets 3k a month, period. No exceptions. Then those people would be free to stop shooting each other over 5 dollars and start producing things they WANT to do instead of things they have to do.

I’ve read this question five times and have no clue what you’re trying to say….early onset dementia?

Ahhha, so you understood the question? Could you please rephrase this encoded question since you are the brilliant one?

About as likely as your ideologies I’m sure, you are correct on that!

Recovery to whom?

Agree 100%