What if 99% of nation's wealth will belong to the top 1%? Would it be still capitalist nation or some kind of neo feudal/neo fascist state? Does economic theory predict % of the wealth accumulated by top 1% beyond which capitalist system cannot work?
I don't know, but I suspect that before the wealth moves like that, the system will ahve collapsed. I suppose either a new form of government would arise, or at least a large depression, then rise. And In the 2nd question, no, we would not be capitalist, we would probably be some sort of aristocracy. :m:
I think we're already at that point, I found a good link describing the statistics. I don't want to single out americans, I have NO DOUBT at all that these numbers are similar in most democratic countries. Likely, if it can be fathomed, it's even worse in non-democratic countries.
USSR was not democratic (officially it was), it had quite modest wealth accumulation by the top 1%. It was #1 reason why it fell. The top have lost its faith in the communism (if they had any to start with), greed followed, nothing satisfies greed better than splitting/stealing of state property and living capitalist/feudal life happily ever after. USSR was doomed. Ronnie should have just relaxed instead of wasting trillions on the useless arm race. Greed was at work. Now some of the former communist bosses are kings in their semi-feudal, semi-capitalist states. I believe that wealth is somewhat less concentrated in the Western Europian countries due to their progressive taxation. USA was much more wealth uniform 50 years ago than today. As for 19th century USA, it was even worse (wealth distribution wise) than today.
1st question: It could but doesn't have to be. I depends on the system and its people. 2nd question: it is a capitalist system. I believe the theories are of two strands. The socialists like Marx say that the prolaterate would revolt. the second (shumpeter) thinks that the welfare and wealth of the society would generate an intellectual class that would fight the injustice of the system and motivate the poor.
The greatest problem of the usa (I predict the same in the E.U.) is the levels of difference in wealth and the eroding middle classes.
In Canada, we try to bring a lot of the wealth of the bottom 20% higher. In a lot of places, like the US, the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger, and as was mentioned, the middle class is eroding. That is perhaps because in the USA, some people have to sell their house to afford health care. in Canada, the government takes as much load as possible off of the poor and tax the rich like crazy.
Revolt, lowered production and want. The upper class can live like kings without completely eroding the middle class. The problem is that the middle class are trying to join the upper, which causes the erossion. I think rich peopleactually want to live in a nice place. This is tough to do if everyone else is poor.
I can ask an Economics professor I know. He has done land use studies in Ukraine and in one of those other unpronouncable countries in the region. And as for distribution of wealth in the 19th century, that same professor has also doen some studies on historical allocation of wealth in NW Georgia during the late 1800's, during the reconstruction.
% of wealth or income or such, I forget what, in the % groups of the USA. 1986 1999 Top 1% 11.30 19.51 Top 5% 24.11 34.04 Top 10% 35.12 44.89 Top 25% 59.04 66.46 Top 50% 83.34 86.75 Bottom 99% 88.70 80.49 Bottom 95% 75.89 65.96 Bottom 90% 64.88 55.11 Bottom 75% 40.96 33.54 Bottom 50% 16.66 13.25 from: http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html (i hope it turns out ok when it posts.) the point is that if htese figures are correct, the USA has been concentratign wealth int eh hands of the wealthy rather well for the past 20 years, despite taxes and stuff.
