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

#91

Post by wirut » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:27 PM UTC

awat wrote: post #72

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.

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

Nope, people dislike communism because every time it has been tried, a significant portion of the population ends up dead or in slave labor camps.

Sorry, but I'll take the freedom to buy endless crap, have an virtually unlimited food supply, and have the freedom to criticize the government without ending up in the Gulag.

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

#92

Post by torpfactory » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

I don’t think it’s sufficient that conditions for the bottom 50% are just improving. In my opinion, humanity has the technology to provide for everyone to have access to clean food and water, modern medical care, and primary education. These should be provided without regard to the ability of the recipients to pay. Wealth inequality definitely gets in the way of this goal, as wealth that might help achieve these goals instead ends up in he hands of a few. In the US we effectively deny modern medical care to poor folks - you are required to go essentially bankrupt before Medicaid kicks in. Many people forego care so they don’t go bankrupt. The fact that more sane policies have not been implemented is a direct result of the influence of a wealthy political donor class which does not want to help pay for such a system. Inequality is inevitable, but we at least ought to move the safety net up a bit (and globally too).

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

#93

Post by Analemma_ » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

> is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions.

Which they are not: real wages for the bottom four quintiles have been stagnant since the seventies and the 1% have captured essentially all income gains from productivity growth since then. That is the source of the discontent.

> Over a billion people have been lifted out of poverty over the last 30 years thanks to globalization

You're trying to pull a fast one here. The statistic about "a billion people have been lifted out of poverty" has been greatly overblown: it's technically true, but it turns out most of those people are in China— if you exclude China, the number looks much less impressive. And yes, China's development is impressive, but it's a non sequitur to go from "Dirt-poor Communist country becomes richer when switching to free-market capitalism" to saying that contemporary ultra-laissez-faire economics are a good thing for developed nations.

> It just spurs on class resentment which is, if history is any guide, just about the worst way to go about things possible.

"It's only class warfare when we fight back". If, as the evidence strongly hints, the rich are leveraging their capital into political power to get more and more opportunities to stack the deck and create an unfair playing field (in a positive feedback loop), then not noticing this and subsequently demonizing them is deliberately blinding oneself to the problem and the most plausible avenues of solution.

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

#94

Post by tibbetts » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #84

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…

I am super interested in reading Enlightenment Now - I will do so especially after your comment. I'll have to do this because I so vehemently disagree with your summary or assessment of the situation. Specifically, > 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. This is whataboutism…

This is true. The feeling of entitlement, that their wealth was earned, and the lack of obligation to give back to the greater good, is the biggest problem with wealth growth since the 1980s. The 19th century British aristocracy might have been horrible, but at least they thought they were supposed to be building a better world, not just feathering their own nest.

_How Much is Enough_ is a very conservative British book about this, and the idea that modern Capitalism has forgotten what the point of life might be.

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

#95

Post by cmurf » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:29 PM UTC

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #29

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.

And a capitalist society wouldn’t privatize profits but socialize risk.

Why? What kind of law, or institution, or self-regulation prevents it?

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

#96

Post by sykh » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:29 PM UTC

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…

I haven't read Pinker's book and he is certainly more knowledgeable than I am on the topic. What does he say about attitudes like "keeping up with the Joneses", jealousy, and similar emotions? It seems to me that most people tend toward jealousy and compare themselves to those who are better off rather than those who are worse off.

I've been under the impression that disparity, inequality in and of itself is a problem due to human nature. Does Pinker's research show otherwise?

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

#97

Post by Emma_Goldman » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

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?

There's a difference between someone physically constraining you so that you can't eat and from not having enough money to eat, but that doesn't mean the one is free in the latter case. Indeed, presumably one does not want to be physically stopped from eating because one wants to eat - i.e. substantively we want to be free to do things, and can only do things if society grants us the means to.

What are 'the laws of nature'?!!?

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

#98

Post by psyc » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

tibbetts wrote: post #87

psyc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It matters, and it might be ok if the wealthy were being nice about it. Unfortunately a very active subset seems to be bringing back feudalism. In the 20s-70s rich people were conveniently afraid of communist revolution and thus inclined to distributed gains. Without another credible threat of global revolution I don’t know how this gets fixed. Of course, communism did have downsides for the people who actually lived…

I basically agree with your first sentence. Specifically, I don't believe capitalism itself is the root problem, but rather something like a deficit in social cohesion. No sense that we're fellow humans collectively struggling towards a better society. That sense doesn't necessarily imply a communist implementation. It could mean something as simple as an ethos in which those who are better off try to help others up. I couldn't begin to address how that might come about, and I'm as wary as anyone about trying to use a State to do it. Because the State never actually turns out to be the People, except in the naive or fanciful abstract.

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

#99

Post by return0 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

Every simple RPG game must have faced this problem - the rich get richer exponentially. Programmers sometimes introduce weird rules such as , the more you have the costlier it is to buy sth etc. Capitalism has a real problem. Piketty has exposed it adequately. People need to put forward solutions, to get the money flowing again. Taxation is not the only solution, in fact its impossible to get it right in today’s globalised economy.

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

#100

Post by starchild_3001 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

ghouse wrote: post #55

In the US, a large part of this trend is due to the tax code. Examples: 1) in real estate, a "1031 transfer" allows the tax payer to not pay tax on the gain from the sale of property so long as they purchase another piece of real estate. 2) Capital Gains tax rates are lower than Ordinary Income tax rates. So, the tax you pay on income derived from wealth is lower than the tax rate you pay on income derived from emplo…

Re: 1) it only applies to your primary residence. It's by no means the way top %1 in wealth maintain or create their income. [Edit: I thought it does. But I'm not so sure anymore. Better scratch this comment]

2) I'd suggest examining double taxation. Corporations already pay taxes. It's unclear why an investor should pay additional taxes too on top of it, for the same profit.