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

Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 228 posts

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#191

Post by nxzero »

ommunist wrote: post #161
nxzero wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, then what by definition is an average person?

Joe the Schmoe, 15-75K USD per year in the 1st world. Barak the Schmack, 10-100 usd per month in the 3rd world. Surprisingly there is no more the 2nd world. since the USSR is no more and Ivan the Plan had no salary comparable to its monetary value, but a hell lot of social services he and his family used for free. Like free education for example.

I see, the super rich have more money than the super poor; how obvious, no idea why I missed that.

Any idea if there other differences, or are the super rich and very poor on average the same? If not how so?

Also, might be worth noting if this is based on meeting people in the real world?

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#192

Post by ommunist »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #189
ommunist wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ok, call it 'social rearrangement'. Lets make Mexico more democratic, give more power to people, protect elections, and give basic income to every Mexican. Gates's money is more than enough to provide basic income to 10 generations of mexican people. Will never happen though.

I happen to work with someone who is still a citizen of Mexico living in the US ( there is family land in Mexico and he can't keep it and be a US citizen ) , and according to him, it's extremely complicated. The big complicating factor is probably the US War on Drugs. But he has stories - like his brother fixed up a car nicely. There's a tax on that, and the car was simply taken, and his brother was taken to jail. If…

This is just fascinating. Thank you for sharing that.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#193

Post by brador »

zanny wrote: post #159
morgante wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather than just kill your brothers and claim the throne and execute the dissidents and having your firstborn son inherit the crown from you, your children inherit ludicrous wealth that translates into the same power to buy the violent arm of the state for your own ends. Except inherited wealth is at all-time lows. If you look at the richest people in the world today, the majority of them made their own way into th…

I should have worded it better, but it is not just strictly biological children. There is an entire cultural social class above what most call "rich" that encompasses the heads of major universities, companies, investment firms, and governments that represent a fraction of one percent of the population but have consistently controlled the vast majority of capital and have gradually increased their ownership stake sin…

Would a yearly single flat tax of XX% of total net worth for every human in the world solve the problem? Essentially a literal redistribution of wealth, but could it work?

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#194

Post by lgieron »

rskar wrote: post #88
lgieron wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I call a revolution "a win" - see the French revolution (hundreds of thousands dead in cleansings, country ruled by ruthless dictator) or Bolshevik or Chinese Communist Revolutions. I'm finding it hard to come up with a positive counterexample.

American revolution? Is that one a flop? (I mean for now, future trajectories aside.)

It's a good example IMO. I didn't come to my mind because I see it more as a colony liberating itself rather than internal turmoil - the ruling masters were mostly on another continent, so there was no problem of what to do with them after they lost power (and in America, the royalist fled to Canada, which was not an option in other revolutions as they didn't leave large areas of land loyal to the old order).

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#195

Post by golergka »

ommunist wrote: post #151
golergka wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one thing this communist logic doesn't take into account: risk. Ownership and risk are inherently tied to one another. Thinking only about scenarios where this risk already passed and then calling owners "parasites" is survivorship bias in the purest form.

Communists took ultimate risk when they risked their lives overthrowing capitalism as a system, being it Russia in 1917 or Cuba in 1953.

That statement's not entirely factually correct, lies by omission, but most importantly, doesn't have anything to do with the risk in question.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#196

Post by nickpsecurity »

ommunist wrote: post #187
nickpsecurity wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her background is like a whose-who of scheming companies and groups. She was apparently pretty effective, too. Not that great an example, though, given people only care about nuclear so much. Our best example in recent times is still 2008. In this case, the elites crash the whole system, get paid off for it, and get criminal immunity. This kind of event and resulting deal should be non-existent in a democracy. Wherea…

In Russia censorship was always the cage. In the US it was always a skeleton.

That's an interesting way to state it. Could you elaborate to make sure I'm understanding the metaphor?

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#197

Post by jonknee »

nxzero wrote: post #152
jonknee wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very rich are just average people; meaning there's a mix of types of people that are very rich; aka billion or more. Being very rich is by definition not being average. There are ~1,800 billionaires in the world and none are average.

I see, then what by definition is an average person?

Someone with an average amount of wealth (e.g. not much) would be a good place to start.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#198

Post by ommunist »

golergka wrote: post #195
ommunist wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communists took ultimate risk when they risked their lives overthrowing capitalism as a system, being it Russia in 1917 or Cuba in 1953.

That statement's not entirely factually correct, lies by omission, but most importantly, doesn't have anything to do with the risk in question.

Sure thing. A sparrow bravely takes risk of competition for food among other sparrows. And this is not that exact risk the hawks take.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#199

Post by physicalist »

ommunist wrote: post #89
physicalist wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how russia proves anything. to me, what didn't work wasn't wealth redistribution, but planned economy. And planned economy has become mire viable since then, thanks to computers.

Russia after 1992 made experiment in wealth redistribution within capitalist system restored. The resjlt was devastated economy and creation of oligarchs. Read 'The Iron Heel' by Jack London, this is what happened in Russia when it turned back to capitalism.

Russia made one big "mistake" after 1992: "privatizing" the public sector by "gifting" enterprises to friends of Yeltsin. You could of course call this redistribution of wealth, but that's not what anyone has in mind here.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#200

Post by ommunist »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #196
ommunist wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Russia censorship was always the cage. In the US it was always a skeleton.

That's an interesting way to state it. Could you elaborate to make sure I'm understanding the metaphor?

In the US professional media participants are literally trained not to touch sensitive parts of the social discourse. Hence the political correctness - the modern doublespeak, and natural avoidance of entire massive sets of facts underlying important social problems and drivers. E.g. no reports in the U.S. media on French toxic waste dumping to the sea within Somalian territorial waters. But! A hell lot of publications about 'somalian pirates' afterwards. When these poor fishermen were literally left without source of food not only for them, but for their next generations.

Just in case I am too thin, the US journalist will rarely if ever publish fact that will cost him a career prospect, or give him label of 'red'. Even if he or she has certain sympathies. This is self-censorship and it is very effective.

Post reply on HN