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

World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 284 posts

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#201

Post by oblio »

umeshunni wrote: post #146
dclowd9901 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're burying your head in the sand, you're missing the headlies that wages have been stagnant for decades.

Nearly a billion people have been pulled out of poverty in India and China over the last 25 years. Their wages have at least tripled on average in real terms in the last 20 years. So, it's you who's burying your head in the "America first" sand. The middle class in the US had enjoyed the fruits of global inequality resulting from colonialism and WW2 during the second half of the 20th century. As the gap in skills and…

Yeah, but things might not go swimmingly. We will see violence, protectionism, plain old isolationism rise.

The developed countries are still developed and their citizens will fight back.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#202

Post by justicezyx »

oreo81 wrote: post #117
justicezyx wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just contribution, it's about the ratio of what you take and what you contribute. Ideally, one should contribute as much as she/he takes. Of course, that's impossible and impractical. I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly. That's the problem.

I see it as the exact opposite.

> I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly.

You mean the richer people are, the ratio of their contribution to taking grows? That does not seem possible, because that will not make the person rich in the first place.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#203

Post by valuearb »

oblio wrote: post #194
valuearb wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the Koch family everyone's standard of living increased significantly over the last 100 years because gasoline was produced more cheaply. What the Koch's spent their money on is an entirely different issue.

Because of the whole family or because of Fred C. Koch? Big difference ;)

Obviously Fred. The family is what Fred spent his money on ;)

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#204

Post by justicezyx »

jknoepfler wrote: post #200
knolan wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parents had paid off their mortgage when they were my age. My father was self employed and my mother a housewife. I’m on a reasonably good salary but banks won’t loan us enough to buy an averaged sized family home even though we have a reasonable deposit. My partner would have to be on an equally sized salary but her teaching job pays very little. Sure we have some nicer gadgets and personal comforts but the cost…

I suspect a lot of these comparisons are not apples to apples. Declining wages are real, but populations are declining in the affordable but undesirable towns where property is cheap that my parents and grandparents bought into. My mother's parents bought their first home in Minot, North Dakota and saved up for a tiny home in St. Paul, Minnesota. He was an engineer who put himself through school while living in a box…

The problem is not that the growth is not there. But the sharing the growth corresponding to people's contribution.

Do the super rich really should enjoy the wealth? Are those really justified? Do their employees has done proportionally smaller amount of contribution to only entitle to that much less wealth in salary?

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#205

Post by sintaxi »

EliRivers wrote: post #169
sintaxi wrote: post #47

In other words, the 500 wealthiest people added a trillion dollars of value to the economy this year. Edit: you all that are down-voting need to learn how the economy works.

The creation of wealth, in various forms, is what adds "value" to the economy; rich people ending up owning/controlling that wealth isn't the same thing as those rich people having created that wealth. Edit: Don't passive-aggressively revel in victimhood. If you feel misunderstood, explain better - don't blame your audience.

Providing capital to those with talent IS providing value. Thats why entrepreneurs exchange a portion of their company for the capital - capital has value and helps the entrepreneur. Money doesn't appreciate in value by doing nothing. Once you have wealth you can use it to make more wealth by taking risk based on the demands of the market.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#206

Post by rvern »

jonas21 wrote: post #144
volgo wrote: post #126

As capitalism matures, it's clear to anyone with a thread of financial literacy that most wealth is created through capital gains rather than salary. We're approaching a state (at least in developed countries) where productivity is so high, that you can literally park your money in 500 of the biggest businesses and you're almost guaranteed a 7% annual return (if you hold stocks for the long term). Using the commonly…

None of these things are inherent to capitalism -- they're a result of current policy decisions, and could be fixed with different policy decisions. Want to reduce the incentive to inherit money and do nothing? Increase the estate tax and lower the threshold where it kicks in. Want to reduce the disadvantages of earning a salary? Increase taxes on capital gains and dividends and decrease taxes on earned income. Want…

Taxes on capital gains are harmful and don't make sense. It would be more efficient to tax consumption and have no capital, estate, income, or corporate taxes. Scott Sumner has written many excellent articles about taxes on capital gains:

- http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/07/do_you_really_w....

- http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/04/theres_only_one....

- http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/09/our_bizarre_sys....

- http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=26636

Unfortunately sensible economic policies aren't politically feasible. This is partly because of the economic illiteracy of most voters and the lack of incentive for politicians to adopt economically sensible policies, but also because economists themselves often misunderstand economic theory.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#207

Post by manigandham »

ABCLAW wrote: post #199
manigandham wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does someone having wealth stop anyone else from acquiring theirs? You may start out with less but there's nothing stopping you. Also all those capital investments are helping the companies and funds they're invested in, one of which could be your very own employer/startup/pension fund, etc.

Wealth is, abstracted, control over resources. How does someone else controlling resources prevent you from obtaining resources? Well, because they control the resources. The entire concept of rivalry in economics is about this. Only in the case of resource that are not rivalrous does pre-existing wealth become a non-factor.

If you just redefine the word then there's not much of an argument. Resources are constrained, wealth isnt. You can create value somehow and generate wealth, regardless of what someone else is doing.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#208

Post by manigandham »

freyir wrote: post #180
manigandham wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does someone having wealth stop anyone else from acquiring theirs? You may start out with less but there's nothing stopping you. Also all those capital investments are helping the companies and funds they're invested in, one of which could be your very own employer/startup/pension fund, etc.

> How does someone having wealth stop anyone else from acquiring theirs? The wealthy person (a) does not need a 9-5 job to subsist and can devote all their time to a launching a business, (b) has a lower tax burden via capital gains, (c) can afford to fail multiple times, (d) can buy their way into a top school if they don't get in on merit, (e) tends to have better family connections, (f) etc. Then the question is t…

Sure, as I said you may start out with less and have to work harder, but nothing you mentioned is stopping you from doing anything.

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#209

Post by CaptSpify »

jacquesm wrote: post #139
CaptSpify wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes He used his power to push shitty and proprietary software into my industry, thus limiting the impact that properly developed software could have created. I had no choice in this and he used everything from back-room deals to flat out lies to achieve this.

> I had no choice in this and he used everything from back-room deals to flat out lies to achieve this. And a couple of well documented crimes.

I'm likely to believe that, but can you provide sources?

Re: World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

#210

Post by rainbowmverse »

manigandham wrote: post #168
volgo wrote: post #126

As capitalism matures, it's clear to anyone with a thread of financial literacy that most wealth is created through capital gains rather than salary. We're approaching a state (at least in developed countries) where productivity is so high, that you can literally park your money in 500 of the biggest businesses and you're almost guaranteed a 7% annual return (if you hold stocks for the long term). Using the commonly…

How does someone having wealth stop anyone else from acquiring theirs? You may start out with less but there's nothing stopping you. Also all those capital investments are helping the companies and funds they're invested in, one of which could be your very own employer/startup/pension fund, etc.

A lot of them create their wealth specifically by destroying the ability of others to create wealth for themselves. There are human consequences to automating away entire industries in the time it takes someone to train for them.

Wealth insulates the wealthy from it, at least until millions of people can't find work for long enough that revolution seems like a good idea.

Post reply on HN