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

#61

Post by petra » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:14 PM UTC

thinkloop wrote: post #45

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.

It's just propagnda.

Capitalism is also freedom limiting. Just ask low wage earners struggling to pay rent and afford healthcare.

And on the other hand, the nordiis seem to do quite well.

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

#62

Post by lsd5you » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:14 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.

Except measures (and measurements) and all of this stuff just don't seem to work. In the abstract they sound good, but in implementation they always look incredibly lacking and seem to just further perversify incentives.

It's not that we shouldn't try to improve these things, but in my opinion your position is a forlorn hope that is destined to be disappointed.

The times when nations have worked better and more efficiently are times when there have been other sources of unity and a combined sense of national value which the modern world, and perhaps historical distance from the reckonings of the past (in particular world war 2) have been inexorably weakening.

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

#63

Post by throwaway84742 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:14 PM UTC

Worldwide, if you make over $32k per year you’re 1%. I suggest folks think carefully about this fact before suggesting hanging the rich or anything else Marxist-Leninist.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...

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

#64

Post by Semaphor » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

thinkloop wrote: post #45

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.

Freedom is also a problematic word. I guess you could say that Europe has "more units of communism" than the US. But if you ask where a poor person is more free, you'd get quite different answers from different people.

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

#65

Post by psyc » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:16 PM UTC

petra wrote: post #61

thinkloop wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just propagnda. Capitalism is also freedom limiting. Just ask low wage earners struggling to pay rent and afford healthcare. And on the other hand, the nordiis seem to do quite well.

Capitalism is like "Enter to win a chance at freedom! Remember, you can't win if you don't play."

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

#66

Post by aantix » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

Does it matter? The expenditures for the US in 2016 we’re nearly 4 trillion. Trillion. The top 10’s wealth if siezed wouldn’t even come close to that.

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

#67

Post by forrestthewoods » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

aquark wrote: post #39

forrestthewoods wrote: post #5

Top 1% Global Income - $32,500/year Top 1% Global Wealth - $770,000 assets via https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...

This feels like a large disconnect? Assuming these two sets of people are not the same -- there are a lot of people in the west earning > $32K a year and having less than $770K in assets. So they are in the top set but not the bottom. Since the cardinality of the sets is the same, where are all the people that have more than $770K in assets but earn less than $32K a year. Even a fairly modest 5% return would produce…

I agree. It does feel weird. I suspect radically differing methodology may be at play.

Then again if you take a teacher who made $40k/year for 30 years but has a decent pension and owns a normal home maybe it's possible?

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

#68

Post by thinkloop » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

petra wrote: post #61

thinkloop wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just propagnda. Capitalism is also freedom limiting. Just ask low wage earners struggling to pay rent and afford healthcare. And on the other hand, the nordiis seem to do quite well.

There's a difference between having less choices by being less wealthy than being forced by others to do things. Can you point out an example in pure capitalism where people are forced by others and not the laws of nature?

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

#69

Post by wowisitlikethis » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

isn't inequality bred by our insistent concept of pecking order throughout our organizations, which results in the people at the top of the stack hoarding more than sharing...

simply just because they can, maybe this hoarding is fueled by the unease and insecurity they they too feel. especially when someones livelihood is totally tied to their job(healthcare, education, housing). in that kind of environment can you blame anyone in an advantageous position to want to hoard so that they feel secure against the winds of change. secure for their family more than anything. imagine someone with a big family who loses their job and has to feed all of them, has to be responsible for all their health-care, housing and education.

some societies have created an environment where if you lose your job your life is totally wrecked, seeing as most americans don't have a nest egg to fallback on since saving is not really part of consumerist culture.

knowing all this, can you blame the 1% for wanting to feel secure? just like everyone else. they have exaggerated the need to hoard and their bags of loot provide long term comforts not basic needs.

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

#70

Post by Tycho » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:18 PM UTC

aquark wrote: post #39

forrestthewoods wrote: post #5

Top 1% Global Income - $32,500/year Top 1% Global Wealth - $770,000 assets via https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...

This feels like a large disconnect? Assuming these two sets of people are not the same -- there are a lot of people in the west earning > $32K a year and having less than $770K in assets. So they are in the top set but not the bottom. Since the cardinality of the sets is the same, where are all the people that have more than $770K in assets but earn less than $32K a year. Even a fairly modest 5% return would produce…

I would guess a very large number of pensioners who own their homes.