Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

blog.rongarret.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 242 posts

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#41

Post by omalleyt »

MrTonyD wrote: post #31
codeismightier wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the hate against Walmart. It only has a profit margin of 3.12% [1] and return on assets of 7.69%. Now I suppose you could argue that all the profits are hidden away somewhere, but that sounds like an unfalsifiable statement. It certainly would be illegal to hide assets from shareholders. [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=WMT

You're talking to someone who has spent most of his life in the Fortune 50 - working with executives who routinely hide the bulk of their wealth from any accounting. These techniques have been widely discussed in the press (if you look). So I must assume that you have, for philosophical reasons, chosen to disbelieve that the rich hide their wealth. Edit: Not sure why I was downvoted. But I was in the room as we reass…

He's not saying the rich don't hide their wealth: he's arguing that corporations do not report artificially lower profits and then proceed to deny returns to their wealthy owners.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#42

Post by zacharytelschow »

> If the differences in income and wealth were entirely reflective of people's productivity and contributions to society there would be no problem. But they aren't. Instead what is happening is that the ultra-wealthy are using their disposable income to buy political influence, then using that influence to get laws passed that allow them to collect rents.

If you're arguing the problem is the ability of the political class to pick winners and losers instead of creating rules that are beneficial to society generally and applied to all equally - amen.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#43

Post by lisper »

rayiner wrote: post #10

Mr. Garret quotes Sanders: > The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. I am rather puzzled that this idea gets so much traction. Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart a…

> Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart and Amazon?

Don't confuse Wall Street and Wal Mart. Not the same thing.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#44

Post by grecy »

rayiner wrote: post #10

Mr. Garret quotes Sanders: > The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. I am rather puzzled that this idea gets so much traction. Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart a…

>Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart and Amazon?

What would happen is that Wal-Mart and Amazon, et al. would pay their fair share of taxes, and the owners (or share holders) would not be multi-billionaires, only single-digit millionaires at most. The effect would be that every single person in the United States would have Heath Care, Tertiary Education paid for, excellent unemployment benefits, etc. etc.

There would no longer be desperate people struggling to survive while others have orders of magnitude more money than can be spent in 10 lifetimes.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#45

Post by rubyfan »

UK-AL wrote: post #16
MrTonyD wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took me years to realize that economics isn't physics - and it isn't ruled by physics-like laws. Instead, economics is governed by laws created by our society. And what we think of as "free market" is really just norms of trade which are created by our society. There is no reason why the bulk of the billions taken-in by WalMart should go to the Walton family while their employees live on food-stamps - that is just…

Do you believe in property rights? Having a legal/police system to catch people who forcebly take property? Using trade to exchange property? This is the core of our system. And that system will always generate inequality. Not necessarily a bad thing. You can have laws to take the edge off inequality generated, but at the core of the system you can't really avoid it.

Clearly the parent does not believe in property rights when they believe unskilled non-differentiated labor should be rewarded with above market rates by force and at the expense of Walmart's shareholders.

That individuals believe government should be directed at investors who risk their property to create wealth in order to take by force that property to redistribute it is perhaps the most offensive sentiment.

> There is no reason why the bulk of the billions taken-in by WalMart should go to the Walton family while their employees live on food-stamps - that is just a legal arrangement. And there is no reason why the Walton family should continue to be allowed to use offshore corporations to loan themselves money to run all their WalMart stores - that is just a legal arrangement which allows them to avoid taxes and hide their billions offshore

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#46

Post by lisper »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #3

"At the very least, we should strive for a non-regressive tax system, which is what we have now." I'm super pro regressive taxes. Regressive taxes are fantastic for the poor. They get more than they put in AND the elite are less able to avoid paying them. The socialized promised lands of Scandinavia are highly regressive. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/why-im-soft-on-s...

> "if I can trade a somewhat regressive VAT for guarantees of decent retirement and universal health care, I’ll take it"

That's a big "if".

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#47

Post by puredemo »

Frondo wrote: post #40
puredemo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the end private property is indeed theft, Private property can't be "theft" if there is no private property. If you don't believe in private property, you're sort of poisoning the well of any economic conversation, since it's the foundation of basically all of peaceful civilization. Without private property there is only tribalism and, "might makes right."

One counterpoint: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5872764/the-greatest-mystery-of-the-i...

I'm not sure this is much of a counterpoint. The Inca didn't have a centralized currency, but we really don't know whether they had private property or not, how disputes were handled, or so on. They also seem to have had civil wars, child sacrifice, and other violent traditions.

That being said, many things are possible in groups with smaller populations, I've heard stories of large communes being fairly successful with up to several thousand people. However, at some point they tend to become too disorganized and break down, in one way or another.

In contrast, the concepts of private property and trade have enabled our human family to grow to 7 Billion, and population growth is barely even slowing down yet. Civilization allows things to work on an entirely different scale by providing a somewhat standardized framework for our territorial disputes.

This is also the most non-violent time in history by far, according to researchers, presumably due to the end of tribalism.

So, for me personally, there would have to be extremely compelling arguments to even begin to argue against the utility of private property as a social and economic system.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#48

Post by thescribe »

paganel wrote: post #36
UK-AL wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe in property rights? Having a legal/police system to catch people who forcebly take property? Using trade to exchange property? This is the core of our system. And that system will always generate inequality. Not necessarily a bad thing. You can have laws to take the edge off inequality generated, but at the core of the system you can't really avoid it.

> Do you believe in property rights? Not the OP, but I think a lot more people nowadays should read (or re-read) Locke's "Two Treatises of Government". That book is famous mostly for the second part, where Locke actually intellectually imposes private property as a thing in the Western world, but I found the first part equally interesting, where Locke fights against a guy called Filmer, who was of the opinion (preval…

> In the end private property is indeed theft, more exactly the imposition of someone's moral values over the other's by intrinsic force.

I'm curious how that follows? Many actions require force but are not theft (depriving someone of rightful resources). If your 'moral' values deprive someone of their own rightful resources you probably deserve to have some intrinsic force applied. In that way private property would seem to me to be close to a moral good.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#49

Post by seivan »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #3

"At the very least, we should strive for a non-regressive tax system, which is what we have now." I'm super pro regressive taxes. Regressive taxes are fantastic for the poor. They get more than they put in AND the elite are less able to avoid paying them. The socialized promised lands of Scandinavia are highly regressive. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/why-im-soft-on-s...

Hmm, I always thought that forming an AB would allow you pay less tax. Instead of drawing a salary, you'd just take dividends once a year. Though probably missing something here, but that would let you get away with a lot of money. Or you know, just base in Switzerland.

So "the elite are" are certainly avoiding it. Unless by elite you mean the average employee.

I might be wrong here, I hope someone will correct it. I am also pro-regressive taxes, but they need to work. Not sure if they can with the mobility or definition of "the elites".

Post reply on HN