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

#191

Post by KozmoNau7 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #86

dmitriy_ko wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is so ingrained now, nobody can even imagine that alternative system could exist. In the minds of most, communism is a synonym of authoritarianism. Communist governments tended to be authoritarian, but it's not clear to me if it's a natural consequence of communism. It's more likely that authoritarianism is a consequence of violent revolutions. Is it possible to combine communism with democracy?

There is no way for a communist government to be non-authoritarian communism can’t work in any other way. Planned economy and lack of personal liberties cannot coexist in what we would call a democracy unless your definition of democracy is a slightly less violent conflict resolution method. Overall democracy works because it respects the wishes of the individual essentially it gives everyone the right to express the…

That's not communism, though. Communism requires the withering of the state, so a communistic government is a contradiction of terms.

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

#192

Post by philipkglass » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

theseatoms wrote: post #161

tdmule wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.

What sorts of instances of corporate control are you thinking of here? Most examples that come to my mind involve corporations wielding the power of the state over people.

Control of mineral resources, for example. Mining and oil/gas companies are already some of the largest corporations in existence. These are capital-intensive businesses where small entities often can't survive market downturns. Small resource owners get acquired by bigger ones during periods of financial distress, or juniors pre-emptively try to join forces with established companies as soon as they have a proven project to develop. The "natural" tendency, in absence of limits imposed by states, would be to reap maximum economies of scale, control over pricing, and resilience to downturn by combining extractive businesses without limit. A handful of giant corporations could acquire a commanding position over every mineral commodity required by industrial civilization. OPEC could be a very effective price-setter indeed were it a transnational corporation with unified ownership. Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members.

If you picture eliminating the state altogether, including its enforcement of property rights and contracts, then I concede that the powers attendant to wealth would no longer involve a de jure state. I think that the powers of concentrated wealth would remain nonetheless. Wealth would hire private guards to exclude others from their mines instead of using the law enforcement apparatus of a state, for example.

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

#193

Post by drawkbox » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:36 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…

In game design, an imbalanced game is not fun for anyone.

Games that allow both skilled/rich and less-skilled/poor players are common even in balanced games, and they are fun.

The problem becomes when a few players are cheating or the game is imbalanced to the point that noone can win but the already winners and noone can have any fun.

Right now we have inequality that is more like cheats in a game than a balanced, fun, fair game.

Ultimately money wasn't designed to be hoarded, it was designed to be an exchange of value and services. Hoarded money that isn't put into action is taking from the game and the fun which cheats everyone.

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

#194

Post by charlesdm » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:36 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…

"Nice about it"? What should they do, hand it out to people?

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

#195

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:37 PM UTC

TekMol wrote: post #184

michaelmrose wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can already vote in people who agree to redistribute the currency we already have. This doesn't appear any more revolutionary or likely. Why would any of the people who own real resources like deeds, stocks, stores, things agree to give them to you?

Say you are a designer and I am a coder. As soon as we have a common currency, we can start working for each other. No voting or stores needed.

You will still be expected to pay taxes in the official coin of the realm and will probably want to keep it in something slightly less volatile than current cryptocurrency.

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

#196

Post by monort » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

dmitriy_ko wrote: post #40

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…

Capitalism is so ingrained now, nobody can even imagine that alternative system could exist. In the minds of most, communism is a synonym of authoritarianism. Communist governments tended to be authoritarian, but it's not clear to me if it's a natural consequence of communism. It's more likely that authoritarianism is a consequence of violent revolutions. Is it possible to combine communism with democracy?

Voluntary communism was tried too, read about kibbutzim. As you can expect it had practically the same problems as USSR (weirdly including authoritarianism) and they mostly had to return back to private property rights for members.

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

#197

Post by rich-w-big-ego » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:39 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #174

cal5k wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between Mao and Stalin alone you're probably talking 50-100MM deaths. That's one hell of a downside.

I assure you, capitalism has killed more people than that. We just don't call them victims of capitalism.

At least in Capitalism you are allowed to talk about your suffering. In the communist utopias of the 20th century, speaking of your suffering or trying to alleviate it was a capital offence.

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

#198

Post by lifeformed » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:39 PM UTC

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…

Birth rate is a function of poverty. It's high in poor places, since the childhood survival rate is low, and you need extra children to help support family and community.

As standards of living increase, birth rate drops, until it's at a sustainable 2-per-family, like it is in rich countries.

Force poor people to have less kids, and you keep them in poverty. Improve their living situations and they'll have less kids.

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

#199

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

sykh wrote: post #180

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that most people tend toward jealousy

You added a phrase that I did not write. as just jealous I did not write this or imply this. People who struggle with food or housing are not merely jealous. They have real concerns and need. The discussion I referred was not about such people or conditions. I was responding to the notion that inequality does not matter as much now because conditions for the those at the bottom have improved. Clearly the implication…

People who struggle with food

Now you are mis-quoting.

It was fairly obvious what you were implying.

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

#200

Post by mikeash » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

theseatoms wrote: post #161

tdmule wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.

What sorts of instances of corporate control are you thinking of here? Most examples that come to my mind involve corporations wielding the power of the state over people.

Consider the British East India Conpany, which at its peak controlled a vast territory and had an army larger than the British government’s.

For smaller, more common examples, look at the history of company towns and union busting.

Companies these days exert control by manipulating the power of the state because the state usually won’t allow them to exert control more directly. Nothing says it must stay this way.