Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030 • Hacker News Board

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#41

Post by jxub » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #15

Communism went away. It's not that communism was better. It's that it was competition. There was, for half a century, a competitive threat - do better than the USSR, or face a revolution. That threat was taken quite seriously in the US for decades. Industrialists (the US economy was mostly manufacturing back then) were careful not to get too greedy or power-hungry. They feared expropriation. Britain nationalized many…

I think the next iteration of the being known now as capitalism, which is actually just trying to be a collection of principles for resource allocation, must take into account the impact that currently isn't tracked or quantified by money.

It's imperative that the government or some superior structure (preferably decentralised) that doesn't exist yet enforces this improvement of economical performance tracking.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#42

Post by mooneater » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #34

mooneater wrote: post #4

It is said the Chinese plan out 100 and 1000 years. Why not continue the extrapolation past 2050 and 2100, it might provide sound bites with more teeth "One person to control 99% of wealth by date 20XX".

This is silly. Chinese history is no more predicable than anywhere else. If any such plans exist, they are pretty worthless.

"Plans are worthless, but planning is everything"

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#43

Post by TekMol » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

mimsee wrote: post #38

TekMol wrote: post #24

Until the other 99% switch to a new blockchain where ownership is distributed differently.

That'd be ideal of course, but as of today, blockchain doesn't force equality. China had a good grap over Bitcoin where the big money miners where due to cheap electricity.

That's why I said new blockchain. A blockchain for the rest of us.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#44

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

amarant wrote: post #31

I mean.. 1% controlling more than half of all wealth sounds bad and all, but according to the article, quality of life has been improving faster than ever for the remaining 99% too.. As long as that second part holds true, I don't really care about the first part to be honest

With wealth comes decision making power whatever lies you were told in school. If you think those whose interests aren't aligned will make decisions that are aligned with your needs you haven't thought this through sufficiently.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#45

Post by thinkloop » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #15

Communism went away. It's not that communism was better. It's that it was competition. There was, for half a century, a competitive threat - do better than the USSR, or face a revolution. That threat was taken quite seriously in the US for decades. Industrialists (the US economy was mostly manufacturing back then) were careful not to get too greedy or power-hungry. They feared expropriation. Britain nationalized many…

Communism and socialism were disliked primarily because they reduce freedom. Every additional unit of socialism, is one less unit of freedom. Full communism dictates almost every part of your life.

I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#46

Post by wpietri » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:07 PM UTC

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #19

Animats wrote: post #15

Communism went away. It's not that communism was better. It's that it was competition. There was, for half a century, a competitive threat - do better than the USSR, or face a revolution. That threat was taken quite seriously in the US for decades. Industrialists (the US economy was mostly manufacturing back then) were careful not to get too greedy or power-hungry. They feared expropriation. Britain nationalized many…

We’re at the point now where labels such as “capitalist” and “communist” is meaningless. China is a purported communist country but is minting more billionaires per year than any other country.

Yeah, I'm not sure "communist" was ever a particularly valuable label, in that anything large and nominally communist was more statist or totalitarian oligarchy, just painted red. My understanding is that as envisioned, the state would "wither away", devolving power to the people, but in practice people who like power were quite happy to seize the levers of the government and never let them go. Oopsie!

As an aside, I strongly recommend Iannucci's The Death of Stalin [1], which is in US theaters right now. The material would be horrific in a serious film, but treating it as a black comedy makes it endurable. I enjoyed it much more than I expected, and the cast is first rate.

[1] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_death_of_stalin/

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#47

Post by AtomicOrbital » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:07 PM UTC

Any student of history is well aware of these cycles of ever increasing concentrations of power and wealth followed by violent grassroots overthrow of 1% types where control and wealth returns to a more productive distribution ... rinse & repeat ... for example look at Italy from the years 1000 to 1400 which experienced several such cycles ... its a natural expression of the will to power ... the real crime to humanity happens when poor children are starved of education and opportunities while 1% blithely hordes resources in blind faith that more is better when in-fact everyone is better off when the people at the bottom are maximally lifted into self actualized individuals knowing they have skin in the game ... anything less than this is wasting human potential on a massive scale

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#48

Post by knuththetruth » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #19

Animats wrote: post #15

Communism went away. It's not that communism was better. It's that it was competition. There was, for half a century, a competitive threat - do better than the USSR, or face a revolution. That threat was taken quite seriously in the US for decades. Industrialists (the US economy was mostly manufacturing back then) were careful not to get too greedy or power-hungry. They feared expropriation. Britain nationalized many…

We’re at the point now where labels such as “capitalist” and “communist” is meaningless. China is a purported communist country but is minting more billionaires per year than any other country.

This seems like a strange sentiment when the trajectory of wealth accumulation and power in Capitalists societies track pretty closely with the analysis of Marxism. Unless your saying that all ostensibly communist societies are actually examples of State Capitalism.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#49

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

TekMol wrote: post #43

mimsee wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'd be ideal of course, but as of today, blockchain doesn't force equality. China had a good grap over Bitcoin where the big money miners where due to cheap electricity.

That's why I said new blockchain. A blockchain for the rest of us.

Its profoundly unclear how merely throwing the word blockchain does anything useful for equality.

Having a different way to record ownership doesn't change how ownership is distributed. Logically the blockchain would be a good way to record ownership in a more equal society in same fashion as forks and bricks would be useful tools in a new and more equal society.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#50

Post by doomlaser » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

jxub wrote: post #41

Animats wrote: post #15

Communism went away. It's not that communism was better. It's that it was competition. There was, for half a century, a competitive threat - do better than the USSR, or face a revolution. That threat was taken quite seriously in the US for decades. Industrialists (the US economy was mostly manufacturing back then) were careful not to get too greedy or power-hungry. They feared expropriation. Britain nationalized many…

I think the next iteration of the being known now as capitalism, which is actually just trying to be a collection of principles for resource allocation, must take into account the impact that currently isn't tracked or quantified by money. It's imperative that the government or some superior structure (preferably decentralised) that doesn't exist yet enforces this improvement of economical performance tracking.

Max Roser (https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser) collects a lot of data about trends in living conditions and economics. He was the source for a lot of the graphs in Steven Pinker's latest book.