Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

241–250 of 284 posts

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

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest issue with any sort of basic income is that landlords and grocery store owners will just ever-increase their prices. How do we combat that?

I've thought the same thing. The basic income would be the new baseline, and I think we'd see the same poverty rates. "Why do you need a raise? You get $xxx in basic income." - Boss

"Why do you need a raise? You get $xxx in minimum salary."

Salaries (except maybe minimum wage) are set by demand and supply. UBI will do nothing to demand, will do nothing to supply of high skilled jobs and may actually reduce supply for low paying jobs by providing an alternative that isn't starving.

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

#242
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why wealth inequality is bad? If me and the rest the million other people in my city have $100,000, some billionaire in a city somewhere else making another 100 million doesn't really have any impact on me directly. Yet it increases this inequality metric and I'm supposed to be outraged. If the billionaire was using this position to corner the real estate market I'm trying to buy a house in, then I mi…

Because democracy stops working when inequality is too great. Regulatory capture and all that. It's waaaaay harder for you to organize and mobilize your 1000 buddies than it is for 1 billionaire to decide he wants to do something you don't want, such as lobbying politicians to give him a tax break, for example.

It's not as hard to organize people along ideological boundaries as you might think. Look at the power of the US political parties, the NRA, unions, etc.

If we want to stop regulatory capture, stop that. Don't worry if it's one person or 1000 behind a movement.

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

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain why wealth inequality is bad? If me and the rest the million other people in my city have $100,000, some billionaire in a city somewhere else making another 100 million doesn't really have any impact on me directly. Yet it increases this inequality metric and I'm supposed to be outraged. If the billionaire was using this position to corner the real estate market I'm trying to buy a house in, then I mi…

The main problem is in political representation. In a democracy, everyone should count as one vote. The natural desire of the population is to have better education and health care, for example, that can lift the standing of the whole society. When a small minority has a disproportionate amount of wealth, they can relatively easily bend politics to their personal wishes. In the US this presents itself in politicians…

It seems to me that is a problem that should be solved by anti-lobbying/political donation laws.

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

#244
post #180

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…

"Tech, and the web especially, often approaches a zero-sum game."

Why do you think that? Since 2000, how many brand-new companies and brand-new industries have been created, from scratch? Doesn't look very zero-sum to me.

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

#245
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.

> How does someone having wealth stop anyone else from acquiring theirs?

Through regulation and corruption.

Accredited investor regulation in the startup world makes sure you can't participate in the future, even if you see it coming. Income tax to make sure a good year doesn't let you stop working. Capital gains tax to make sure you can't outperform the stddev for your socio-economic class range.

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

#246
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wealthy absolutely do not benefit from inflation, and lose the most money due to it in reality. Inflation depreciates the value of your liquidity, which is why every major company (except apple, it seems) dumps as much currency as possible into appreciable and tax deductible assets. However, that's more difficult for persons, and most of the super wealthy end up holding a plurality of their money on their person.…

> Inflation depreciates the value of your liquidity, which is why every major company (except apple, it seems) dumps as much currency as possible into appreciable and tax deductible assets. When you read stories that Apple (or whoever) has $X billion "in cash" it's not actual cash. They keep some around in money markets and the like for near term expenses, but the majority is in bonds that pay more than inflation. In…

That makes sense. Morningstar groups all near term liquidity together, and so I figured Apple had to be constantly expanding aggressively or something and needed a warchest 7x the size of microsoft's to do it. Sitting on bonds as amid-near term solution makes more sense.

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

#247
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you realize that taxing only consumption means taxing the poor a lot, and the wealthy almost nothing?

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

#248
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's clear to anyone with a thread of financial literacy That's argument from intimidation and not a valid form of argumentation. > In effect, late stage capitalism becomes the anti-thesis of the spirit of capitalism - devoid of competition, free innovation, and upward mobility Fortunately the world isn't in late stage Capitalism, because there is no such thing. As one obvious example, China has only begun to emerg…

>In the US, more people are moving up and out of the middle class, than are moving down and out of it. That has been the consistent trend for 50, 30, 15, 10 years. You're going to need to provide a citation for this statement. As for the rest, how many people are getting wealthy from these companies? Largely the same people who were getting wealthy from previous generations, and a few lucky individuals who managed to…

Agreed there's some hyperbole as to the current state of things, but the ability for new entrants to pressure the old guard in an industry and in some cases put them out of business or relegate them to the margins is paramount. It's about the system and trajectory more than any point in time.

And GP is absolutely right about some of these: it's hard to imagine bigger competitors than the likes of Sears, Walmart, IBM, Microsoft, etc. who, even if they aren't literally dead, have absolutely had their mantles of increasing dominance ripped away, contrary to the doomsayers of the past. Even if GM adapts as you say, they'll be producing electric cars with modern design at competitive prices with better features than ever, precisely because they were forced to by the market. The goal isn't to undermine any company's longevity; it's to force every company to bow to customer pressure via competition. Old or new, it's a win if products get better and cheaper.

Uber and Lyft are getting more and more regulated

This is a common thread across every industry we can discuss, and to the extent that you're correct about the same players wielding power and wealth across eras and trends, lobbying and regulation play a massive role. It's fundamentally a critique of government power, not capitalism.

Same old stuff in new clothes, with the same cast of people running the show.

I'm curious: in what sense is Netflix the same people as the cable companies (or for that matter, movie studios)? They're directly competing in many ways, run by literally different people, with different employees requiring different skills, and competing in new and different markets around the world.

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

#249
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're rich in the first place because they've contributed more to society than other people.

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

#250
post #186
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US "poverty" now includes access to netflix. Poverty has absolutely gotten better in the US over the years.

Poverty also includes having your neighborhood torn apart by junkies on opioids. But I guess actually looking at the econometric data to compare apples to apples isn't worthwhile because you can stay indoors while your tires are stolen and watch Jessica Jones, so things are better than they used to be, right?

Yes things are better than they used to be. People living in bad neighborhoods spending time and money on entertainment need to prioritize better.
Post reply on HN