In some contexts we have nearly removed all the people in this equation already. 85 people own as much as about half the world's population [1]. So, capitalism in the form we have it today, which includes companies, are simply a way to concentrate wealth among the few. Some of these few use the money IMO vicely, but a more equitable system would probably work better. I say this after having lived and worked in the US and the UK (less equal) compared to Sweden and Netherlands (more equal).
All that statistics says is a lot of people have debt. I personally have more wealth than about half the world in my wallet - I've got about $150 in there, and billions of people have negative net worth.
Global inequality is actually declining, by the way, so can't modern capitalism get some credit for that?
You are missing the point. Let me make a mathematical example. Suppose the population distribution is $[-100000 (1M people), 100000 (1M people), 200000 (1 person)]. Then anyone with $1 in net assets has more wealth than the bottom 2/3. In particular, the top person also has more wealth than the bottom 2/3.
All this fact says is that a bunch of assets minus a bunch of debts adds up to small numbers.
(Also note that I said "about half the world" - I don't claim to know the exact cutoff.)
Your point appears to be that if enough people have debt, you don't need to have much to be above them. In short, you're trying to argue that there aren't many actual poor people and that there aren't a small number of super rich people (as the report suggests). Your point is wrong.
Most people are not in debt, as illustrated by the fact that you require USD 3,650 to have more wealth than 50% of people. If most people were in debt then USD 1 would be more than required.
Your figure of USD 150 is ludicrously inaccurate. That's nowhere near half the world. That's my point.
In short, you're trying to argue that there aren't many actual poor people...
I never claimed this. I merely said the specific statistic used to argue this is a poor one.
Again, let me tweak my counterexample to precisely debunk your claim, since you seem to believe $3650 is a magic number while $100k (what I used) is not: [-3650, -3650, 3650, 3650, 3651]. This is a population with median wealth of $3650. The net wealth of the bottom 4/5 is $0 < $1 < $150.
Thus, you have not debunked my claim. Median(x) > $150 does not imply cumsum(x) > $150.
> I merely said the specific statistic used to argue this is a poor one.
No, you claimed, "All that statistics says is a lot of people have debt."
It does not say any such thing. The fact you can choose a contrived set of figures to match the median wealth figures doesn't mean that those figures are representative in any way of the actual distribution of wealth in the world. They certainly are not.
Your claim that the value of the median is mostly due to debt is flat out wrong. Your claim that possession of $150 puts your wealth above 50% of the planet is flat out wrong.
Your claim that Median(x) > $150 does not imply cumsum(x) > $150 is correct, assuming you don't know the distribution. One out of three ain't bad, I guess.
Sure contemporary capitalism has achieved some positives for the living standards of people globally (it's also destroyed others such as Amazonian tribes etc) but I think it's quite clear that it has run it's natural course and that it will be replaced by something either more efficient or more egalitarian soon. Hopefully any new system will have elements of both and probably it will also have heavy capitalist roots still.
You seem to be using a definition of equality that you haven't fully explained. Do you mean more equal in terms of ownership? If so, how is that valuable?
The way I think of it is more equal access to: schooling, healthcare, basic income, nature, and things like: equality between the sexes, less racial or other discrimination, functional democratic political system, practical equality when confronted with the law.
The legal control of a certain amount of wealth says nothing about the extent to which people have been removed from anything. For example Warren Buffett controls tens of billions of dollars worth of economic value, but that value is stored in companies that employ hundreds of thousands of humans.
Well, Norway, a country with a population of the size of Colorado, also has more money than half of the world. Does the fact that their society is more equal in itself actually help with the problem you're describe regard worldwide inequality? I don't see the mechanism.
Maybe the definition and purpose of a company is not so set in stone. Of course I can see how you could have come to this conclusion and often you are probably correct in the assumption but it would also be possible to say:
Companies are simply a tool for creating value for humans by allowing us to exchange money for convenience. Just because the running of the Ethereum mobility company (for example) is completely automated doesn't mean that people won't be able to get from A to B using it.
Most nonprofits are still profitable for the staff. Sometimes immensely profitable, for the CEOs at least.
However, most companies provide value to customers. This article proposes companies that do so without any staff or owners. I don't think that's very realistic, but it is intriguing.
A non-profit which isn't profitable for the staff, i.e. pays salary, isn't going to be around for long, if it isn't primarily volunteer work and then the money to operate is subsidised through other means. Which is ok, but not sustainable in many contexts. (Attacking non-profits CEOs feels like a straw man in this context, and doesn't really add anything.)
