A small bit of a big thing or a big bit of a small thing?

Autocrats and oligarchs will weaken their countries economically despite it negatively impacting the poorest because their wealth is all that matters.

President Putin doesn’t worry about tariffs because he can take as much Russian wealth as he wants. Sacrificing more than a million Russians in a war with Ukraine isn’t even an issue, because he thinks he can replace them with Ukranians.

The Iranian government has put up with sanctions seemingly forever, because they can help themselves to the whole economy, so they don’t mind if it’s smaller. They won’t even blink at killing thousands of Iranians who protest against their control.

Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, but the wealthy let the industry all but collapse, because they could still steal huge wealth for themselves, while leaving many citizens no choice but to leave for other countries.

And there are dozens of more countries facing sanctions, but not caring about the economic impact. They know that if they have total control, they can take whatever they want. That they can make much more money taking most of a smaller economy than taking a smaller part of a larger economy.

At the same time, they convince the poor that a big economy is essential to make them better off. And that the wealthy have to be rewarded disproportionately to incentivize them to grow the economy.

But what if the poor had the same mindset as the wealthy? Forget about incentivizing the wealthy and just focus on taking a larger share for themselves.

The wealthy would still help to grow the economy, because that’s driven by their greed. Since 2000, the US economy has more than tripled in size, but let’s say it only doubled because the wealthy weren’t so incentivized.

And let’s say that instead of the 2.5% share of wealth, the poorest 50% had a 10% share of all the wealth, with a 50% share for the next 40% and just 40% for the wealthiest 10%, instead of the 68% that they’ve hoarded in real life.

In this imaginary USA, with a 35ish% smaller economy, the poorest 50% would have $54,823 each instead of $25,000. More than twice as much and still in a very unequal society.

So, would you prefer a smaller bit of a bigger thing or a bigger bit of a smaller thing?

What you just read? ☝ Shouldn't more people read it?
Share it now, before you forget

Feel free to share the complete post

Click to copy post textAutocrats and oligarchs will weaken their countries economically despite it negatively impacting the poorest because their wealth is all that matters. President Putin doesn't worry about tariffs because he can take as much Russian wealth as he wants. Sacrificing more than a million Russians in a war with Ukraine isn't even an issue, because he thinks he can replace them with Ukranians. The Iranian government has put up with sanctions seemingly forever, because they can help themselves to the whole economy, so they don't mind if it's smaller. They won't even blink at killing thousands of Iranians who protest against their control. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, but the wealthy let the industry all but collapse, because they could still steal huge wealth for themselves, while leaving many citizens no choice but to leave for other countries. And there are dozens of more countries facing sanctions, but not caring about the economic impact. They know that if they have total control, they can take whatever they want. That they can make much more money taking most of a smaller economy than taking a smaller part of a larger economy. At the same time, they convince the poor that a big economy is essential to make them better off. And that the wealthy have to be rewarded disproportionately to incentivize them to grow the economy. But what if the poor had the same mindset as the wealthy? Forget about incentivizing the wealthy and just focus on taking a larger share for themselves. The wealthy would still help to grow the economy, because that's driven by their greed. Since 2000, the US economy has more than tripled in size, but let's say it only doubled because the wealthy weren't so incentivized. And let's say that instead of the 2.5% share of wealth, the poorest 50% had a 10% share of all the wealth, with a 50% share for the next 40% and just 40% for the wealthiest 10%, instead of the 68% that they've hoarded in real life. In this imaginary USA, with a 35ish% smaller economy, the poorest 50% would have $54,823 each instead of $25,000. More than twice as much and still in a very unequal society. So, would you prefer a smaller bit of a bigger thing or a bigger bit of a smaller thing?

Thank you

A small bit of a big thing or a big bit of a small thing? © 2026 by Jethro H. Forclift is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0