democracia participativa y derechos humanos / participatory democracy & human rights

There is currently a strong reaction in the United States against people of high incomes, or the so-called 1% of the population.  This is in line with statistical studies that reveal a major growth of unemployment and poverty, a concentration of income distribution and wealth, and that many people of high income are paying lower tax rates than the average of the population.

We know that wealth is not only result in being an entrepreneur or working hard.  Obviously this is a fallacy.  It may be also the result of inheritance, failing to pay taxes, illegal or monopolisic activities, or the shortsightedness of some enterprises that confuse temporary earnings gains with permanent ones, particularly in the financial sector.

The article below makes an analysis of this issue in the specific situation of leading British companies. It presents a broad analysis based on the studies of Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize in economics in 2002, and other relevant articles and books.  It considers that wealth is determined by having access to certain types of jobs, either by being born in certain places or classes, by using certain tricks, or by particular behaviors of executives and managers.

The 1% are the very best destroyers of wealth the world has ever seen
by George Monbiot 

Our common treasury in the last 30 years has been captured by industrial psychopaths. That's why we're nearly bankrupt

If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves – that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive – are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren't responsible. Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes.

The findings of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of a Nobel economics prize, are devastating to the beliefs that financial high-fliers entertain about themselves. He discovered that their apparent success is a cognitive illusion. For example, he studied the results achieved by 25 wealth advisers across eight years. He found that the consistency of their performance was zero. "The results resembled what you would expect from a dice-rolling contest, not a game of skill." Those who received the biggest bonuses had simply got lucky.

Such results have been widely replicated. They show that traders and fund managers throughout Wall Street receive their massive remuneration for doing no better than would a chimpanzee flipping a coin. When Kahneman tried to point this out, they blanked him. "The illusion of skill … is deeply ingrained in their culture."

So much for the financial sector and its super-educated analysts. As for other kinds of business, you tell me. Is your boss possessed of judgment, vision and management skills superior to those of anyone else in the firm, or did he or she get there through bluff, bullshit and bullying?

In a study published by the journal Psychology, Crime and Law, Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon tested 39 senior managers and chief executives from leading British businesses. They compared the results to the same tests on patients at Broadmoor special hospital, where people who have been convicted of serious crimes are incarcerate ...

[See complete article ]