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

201–210 of 368 posts

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

#201

Post by charlesdm »

smaddox wrote: post #123

A more accurate title would be "Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all capital by 2030". Wealth is not equivalent to capital. The vast majority of capital is tied up in the market capitalization of corporations, and only a small fraction of the market capitalization corresponds to actual physical wealth. If tomorrow the global stock market took a 10% dip across the board, then nearly 10% of the world's capital…

That same 1% would then also lose 2/3rds of 10% of their net worth. Something to remember..

Politicians can hate on the wealth inequality, but it's a problem they themselves have created in part through QE.

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

#202

Post by noobermin »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #191
dogma1138 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

S/he probably meant socialist. Most of the people commenting don't know the difference.

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

#203

Post by Synaesthesia »

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…

The USSR more resembled state capitalism than socialism. Especially if one holds that socialism is a form of government which aims at the improvement of material conditions of workers, and more worker management etc.

See Chomsky: Soviet Union vs Socialism

https://chomsky.info/1986____/

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

#204

Post by pohl »

theseatoms wrote: post #149
psyc wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe we are going to find it increasingly essential to view corporations as a second government that has a particular relationship with the nominal one.

The key difference is that you can opt out of your relationship with one, but not the other. At least they tend to lock horns. To the extent that the two collaborate, we should be suspicious.

The choice of opting out only exists where competition exists. Without a government to keep corporations in check, your ability to opt out would evaporate.

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

#205

Post by zo7 »

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…

The troubling aspect of it aside, a policy like that would result in a net negative for everyone else. Global industries rely on poverty to guarantee an abundance of low-paid (or not paid at all) workers. In their absence, they'd either need to be replaced by bringing wealthy people into poverty, or we'd have to brace for an economic upheaval as traditional industries are disrupted (which would likely also create poverty).

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

#206

Post by mpweiher »

cal5k wrote: post #185
mpweiher wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot to agree with, for example the things Pinker talks about and the fact that wealth is not necessarily a zero sum game. However...income inequality by itself is a problem. Hmm...I thought it was one of Hans Rosling's (amazing) TED talks, but now I just see Richard Wilkinson's talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson Anyway, the fascinating thing is that everything gets worse in a country when the…

I think this is fundamentally the correct point of view, however my argument would be that it's best to focus on improving the lives of the bottom half than bemoaning the wealth of the top 1%. This can be accomplished through progressive taxation and the like, which as a secondary benefit does reduce inequality.

Agreed that that needs to be the primary focus...however (you knew there was going to be a "however"):

Income and wealth inequality have reached pretty ridiculous levels, and noting that as a problem is not "bemoaning" people their (well-earned) wealth. A lot of that is not money earned by advancing society, a lot of is extractive/rent-seeking that is actually harmful (cough 2008 cough).

For example:

"The median American estimated that the CEO-to-worker pay-ratio was 30-to-1, and that ideally, it’d be 7-to-1. The reality? 354-to-1. "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequali...

Sorry, 354:1 is absolutely ludicrous, and I know a little bit of what I am talking about. My father was a high-ranking auto-executive, had actually been planned to succeed Carl Hahn as CEO of Volkswagen, but some funky politics got in the way of that. He never made that kind of money, and didn't want to. He thought it was obscene. And it is.

He also thought unions were a Good Thing™, and they are. If nothing else, they are selective pressure on companies to become better. And that's despite having that belief tested to the limit, because at VW the unions pretty much run the place.

So yes, envy is not a good thing, but noting that CEO pay is ridiculous, that banker's bonuses need to be reined in lest we all suffer the consequences, again, and that inheritance tax is not the devil is not "bemoaning".

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

#207

Post by yazaddaruvala »

zip1234 wrote: post #189
psyc wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more relevant that the vast majority will never be in the group, than that the group's roster changes.

By definition, only 1% of people can be in the 1%...

*At any given time

You could have a contrived round robin system where 100% of people eventually end up with 100% of the wealth.

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

#208

Post by closeparen »

torpfactory wrote: post #92
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 goal…

We lack universal healthcare in this country because the value system shared by approximately half of voters rejects it. This is not Elites vs. The People. Conservativism is a real thing that vast numbers of voters really believe in. Curtailing the power of elites sounds great, but what you are actually talking about is curtailing the power of vast swaths of the population.

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

#209

Post by monort »

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…

Kibbutzism was less authoritarian, than you can expect from communism. I think it was because people always had a choice to leave.

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

#210

Post by mikeash »

ericd wrote: post #157
v_lisivka wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Riches are not working at all, so it is not important how much taxes they will pay, because all taxes will be paid by workers.

The richest pay the vast majority of the tax in the US, regardless of whether they work. And the very richest in the US almost all got there by working, many of them by starting huge companies.

Actual tax rates as a percentage of total income are remarkably flat in the US. It is commonly stated that the rich pay almost everything, but this is done by examining only the federal income tax and ignoring all the other taxes we pay.
Post reply on HN