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

#231

Post by throw2016 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:09 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…

The knee jerk response of 'envy' to any discussion about inequality trivializes economic discussion. Given this is not mere conjecture but backed by hard data by the work of economists like Piketty[1] continued talk about envy betrays a camel in the sand approach.

There is now consensus among leading economists like Stiglitz [2] and even bastions of neoliberalism like the University of Chicago and IMF that something has gone seriously wrong in the last 40 years.

Piketty's data shows a dramatic increase in inequality since the 1980s with labour share of income shrinking with wages stagnant and essentially at the same levels as they were 40 years ago with disproportionate gains going to the top 1 percent.

Grandiose claims about lifting 1 billion people out of poverty are meaningless without any data to back them up. Where, how was it achieved, how long it did take, which specific policies? Why haven't we been able achieve these results in the poorest parts of Asia, Africa and even the USA inspite of trying for the last 70 years?

Contrary to the 'envians' no one cares about the rich in any serious economic discussion, but many do care about the majority in a society getting poorer, unequal outcomes, bad economic policies, lobbying and capture, exploitation, unemployment, underemployment as this can only lead to highly unstable societies.[3]

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/pikettys-inequal...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/stiglit...

[3] http://evonomics.com/joseph-stiglitz-inequality-unearned-inc...

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

#232

Post by micky_25 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:11 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…

>... so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions.

What about western countries where people under 35 are dealing with high student debt, unaffordable housing, stagnate wages and "gig" economy jobs? Things look pretty glum unless you've got some form of inheritance on the horizon.

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

#233

Post by mpweiher » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:11 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #219

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…

everything gets worse in a country when there is "too much" inequality How sure are we of the causality here? Does inequality make these things happen? Maybe countries with strong feelings of unity tend to look after their poorest members better, and tax or restrain their wealthiest members more strongly. In countries with no such feelings it's every man for himself, and those who can screw those who can't, economica…

> How sure are we of the causality here?

Does it matter?

In fact, I am almost certain that these are results of other things, but that they are so closely linked that if you get income inequality as an outcome of those other things, you also get the other negative results. And vice versa.

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

#234

Post by iguy » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:11 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?

In history there are exactly three ways in which different people end up doing the different jobs needed for civilisation.

* You can have a caste system, where everyone does what his father did. Which is more fun if your dad was a priest than if he had to shovel shit.

* You can have someone with a gun tell you what to do. This was Stalin's preferred system. It doesn't mix well with democracy, because threatening to shoot yourself doesn't get coal dug out of the mine.

* You can use money, and let people trade their time for the fruits of their labour. This can exist with or without democracy. It can exist with varying levels of redistribution, too, but people still call it capitalism.

What is this alternative system?

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

#235

Post by hippich » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:12 PM UTC

adamlett wrote: post #182

defertoreptar wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good argument, and to many it's an argument for wealth redistribution. I prefer to look at it instead as an argument for limiting the powers of government in order to limit its susceptibility to corruption.

The government is a small part of the state. The police and armed forces are part of the state, and can be corrupted, even if the government is impotent. All the individual rights and guarantees in the world are of no help to you, if the generals or police chiefs are corrupt.

that is really funny mistype :)) makes one think... :)

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

#236

Post by eeZah7Ux » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:13 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?

Most people believe that the political spectrum has one axis only.

Unsurprisingly there's so much disagreement and ignorance around the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

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

#237

Post by icebraining » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:13 PM UTC

audunw wrote: post #229

defertoreptar wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good argument, and to many it's an argument for wealth redistribution. I prefer to look at it instead as an argument for limiting the powers of government in order to limit its susceptibility to corruption.

A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is susceptible to corruption. To avoid corruption you need the state and the collection of the most powerful corporate/private actors be of similar size, and they must be as isolated and independent as possible. This way you get a balance of power, rather than one corrupting the other. The problem in the US is the isolation/independence part. Mone…

> A small and limited government is a weak government. A weak government is susceptible to corruption.

Why? Also, is that borne by history? Was the US federal government more corrupt when it was more limited?

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

#238

Post by mnm1 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:14 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #225

cal5k wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally empathize with your situation, but globally the numbers are irrefutable. That's not to say that many people aren't still struggling - we can always do better, but I think there's reason to be optimistic.

> I totally empathize with your situation, but globally the numbers are irrefutable. Indeed they are. Here are some numbers from NPR (hardly a right-wing thinktank): https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/yo... In 1960, Americans spent about 18% of their income just for food. Now it's less than 10%. And, of course, the quality of food available to a typical American is vastly better than it was in…

The quality of food is better? That's hardly believable. Do you have a source? All first person accounts I've ever read from people who lived then and now indicate otherwise.

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

#239

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:15 PM UTC

sykh wrote: post #223

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who struggle with food Now you are mis-quoting. It was fairly obvious what you were implying.

I misread “fund” as “food”. I’m on a mobile device without my glasses. Sorry for the error. The mistake was mine. It is bad for you to ignore the rest of what I wrote in my previous comment. I think I did make it clear what I was talking about. Specifically, what reasoning does Pinker give for believing that inequality doesn’t matter as much? He claims that it doesn’t matter. I would like to know why this is so given…

I think you need to go and read your original comment a bit more thoroughly then, I just did and it seems pretty clear to me what you were intending to imply.

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

#240

Post by mikeash » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:15 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #218

mikeash wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say that they paid a large proportion of their income, I said they paid almost all the tax. That's because their incomes tend to be much much larger than those of the poor. I was responding to "because all taxes will be paid by workers.", which is complete nonsense.

That’s not true either. The top quintile accounts for a slight majority of income in the US, and someone at the 20% mark, while doing quite well, is far from rich.