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

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 368 posts

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

#71

Post by mooneater »

niccccccccc wrote: post #59
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".

Yup I am sure China planned to be up to their eyeballs in debt, their money flooding out to Canada and Australia, and cultural revolution 2.0 underway. Yup, all planned out

Obviously real world plans cannot be perfectly executed.

But the act of planning itself, provides the long term perspective badly missing from the western point of view.

That is my point.

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

#72

Post by awat »

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.

I would say it’s really a dislike based on percieved freedom. Are you really anymore free in a capitalist system if the majority of the population can only afford the cheapest {insert item} at Wal-Mart? The pending existential crisis of capitalism in the US is what good is choice if only a select few hold the ability to exercise it?

Edit: spelling

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

#73

Post by Fnoord »

wpietri wrote: post #46
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FWIW, 88 metascore on Metacritic [1] is solid, high. Steve Buscemi as Nikita Khrushchev! Can't wait.

[1] http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-death-of-stalin

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

#74

Post by ItsMe000001 »

jadedhacker wrote: post #27
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree that labels are meaningless. Capitalism is well understood to mean private ownership of the means of production. China is doing a lot of different things and most people understand that.

If it's so well understood why is everyone including those in power acting is helpless? Even the rich warn about the problems. I don't think things like "money", "capitalism" etc are well understood at all. It may not even be possible because those are very fuzzy terms that describe vastly different things depending on what aspects you are looking at and they consist of >90% context. IMO any discussion waving around any of those words can be safely ignored or engaged in only because one is extremely bored and wants entertainment.

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

#75

Post by Analemma_ »

thinkloop wrote: post #68
petra wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is there really, though? If I can't do X, then I can't do X: whether that's from an oppressive government or my own lack of wealth as the result of a rigged economic system is a distinction without a difference.

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

#76

Post by niccccccccc »

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.

You have it wrong. China is a dictatorship that its billionaires are trying to escape, less they get struck down by Xi jingping’s anti corruption drive

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

#77

Post by drhodes »

collyw wrote: post #51

Someone else on HN commented that the poor need to stop reproducing in order to improve equality. At first I found the comment kind of troubling, but the more I think about it the more it seems to make sense. Watching this video kind of backs up the point to a degree, even though the topic is immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE Can someone come back with a decent counterargument? I haven't been a…

There's a subreddit for what you're looking for:

https://reddit.com/r/changemyview

Lots of interesting debate happens there.

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

#78

Post by mooneater »

niccccccccc wrote: post #59
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".

Yup I am sure China planned to be up to their eyeballs in debt, their money flooding out to Canada and Australia, and cultural revolution 2.0 underway. Yup, all planned out

Not saying this because Im a huge fan of china. Just a fan of thinking long-term.

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

#79

Post by collyw »

kccqzy wrote: post #56
collyw wrote: post #51

Someone else on HN commented that the poor need to stop reproducing in order to improve equality. At first I found the comment kind of troubling, but the more I think about it the more it seems to make sense. Watching this video kind of backs up the point to a degree, even though the topic is immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE Can someone come back with a decent counterargument? I haven't been a…

Maybe read an introduction to eugenics?

I don't see that as a counterargument, more of a strawman. Eugenics is based on the gene pool not on relative levels of wealth (as I understand it).

Honestly, if you live in desperate poverty, why would you want to bring a child into the world knowing the amount of suffering that its is likely to live through? Yet the poorest people seem to be the most likely to have the most children.

Maybe another way of phrasing the headline would be:

"The poor are reproducing far faster than the rich"

It doesn't sound as shocking then.

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

#80

Post by psyc »

cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

It couldn't possibly not matter, because wealth is not only standard of living, but also power. At the highest level, the wealthy are not simply comfortable. They have the power to shape and organize aspects of the economy, supply chain, and the laws. That has to matter in some way beyond having one's material needs met or not.
Post reply on HN