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

#251

Post by DSingularity » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:23 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…

The integrity of a weak government is uninteresting. Let them be corrupt, what will they do? Reprimand you?

If the government has power. If is an authority in the eyes of the people. In those cases we should care about the integrity of the government.

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

#252

Post by iguy » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:23 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #202

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems to come down to prescriptivist / descriptivist. The word communism is used to label the empire of Lenin & Stalin, and their friends and admirers. That's what it means.

They didn't all call themselves communists. The germans also don't call themselves german. We do.

It was invented long before, as a label for some imaginary perfect system which did not need to run gulags to keep the lights on. This perfect place played an important theological and rhetorical role in these kingdoms. If discussing such issues we use the word for this too. Words can have several meanings.

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

#253

Post by RealityVoid » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:24 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #208

torpfactory wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think a point can be made that most of those voters rejecting universal health care are persuaded to do so by the very interests of those very wealthy.

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

#254

Post by cal5k » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:24 PM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #238

Turing_Machine wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is to a large degree explainable by way of "rosy retrospection".

Quality has many facets - for example, I doubt they could tell you how often people in their youth died from salmonella, e. coli, or the like. Food was also significantly more expensive, and in colder regions fruit was nearly impossible to come by in winter months.

Was an apple from 1918 more nutritious than one bought in store today? It's possible, but then again nobody (in the developed world) in the 2008 recession was in danger of starving - a very different proposition than during the Great Depression.

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

#255

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:26 PM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #238

Turing_Machine wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The quality of food is better?

The quality of food is immensely better.

For one, you can get actual fresh veggies and fruits year 'round, even in the northern regions.

They didn't have Whole Foods in 1960, dude.

In fact, 1960 was the era of Cheez-Wiz, TV dinners, Tang, Velveeta, and Wonder Bread.

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

#256

Post by theseatoms » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:26 PM UTC

tdmule wrote: post #216

theseatoms wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are some historical examples of corporate control of people's lives. Henry Ford's Sociological Department did unannounced visits to employees' homes to ensure they were "model Americans" and probe for union ties.[1][2] Walmart "locking in" janitors.[3] There are a lot more examples of negative environmental and financial impact, I picked these two as they are examples of controlling human freedoms. [1] Negative…

If you're engaged in a voluntary business relationship with a corporation, they're going to have their own terms, reasonable or not. And yes, the more asymmetric the relationship, the less reasonable the terms.

Fortunately, working for any particular corporation is voluntary. And thankfully, it seems that sunlight has disinfected these specific extreme practices. Hadn't heard of either.

Off-topic: This is the first I've encountered explicit citation of negative/positive sources. I like it.

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

#257

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:27 PM UTC

cal5k wrote: post #241

Turing_Machine wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada (and most of Europe, for that matter) don't bear the costs of their own defense. That helps a lot. You may be wondering who would want to attack Canada. Well, you have an awful lot of wheat and oil, and China has an awful lot of hungry people and factories.

China spends less than half what America spends on defense, and yet nobody is crazy enough to want to attack China. I'd also argue that a de-escalation in defence spending is entirely possible without sacrificing national security. Would China invade Canada if the world's defence budgets dropped precipitously? Probably not - it has far more to gain through trade than by attempted colonization. In fact, last time I ch…

> China spends less than half what America spends on defense

We're not talking about what China spends. We're talking about what Canada spends. Which wouldn't be enough to defend against Mexico in a fair fight, much less China.

> Probably not - it has far more to gain through trade than by attempted colonization.

Yeah, well, you might want to talk to Tibet, Vietnam, and India about that. Or, for that matter, any of the people who are being displaced by Chinese colonization in Africa as we speak.

Edit: lots of food for thought here. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+colonization+africa&ia=web

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

#258

Post by RealityVoid » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:28 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #234

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?

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 s…

I really don't see the caste system fitting in your example. I am not very knowledgeable of it, and might miss something, but surely, even in a caste system you get remunerated and paid. A caste is more of a who does what system rather than an incentive system.

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

#259

Post by cal5k » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:29 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #206

cal5k wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Amer…

Most people don't become wealthy by getting a job as the CEO of a large company - they start companies, work in finance, inherit their wealth, etc.

It's an entirely symbolic ratio. If you halved it tomorrow it would not make one whit of difference. It just sounds outrageous and makes for compelling headlines.

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

#260

Post by iguy » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:31 PM UTC

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…

The Death of Stalin is great.

The fact that some people once wished the word "communist" to mean something else doesn't matter much. Post-1945 it has had a clear meaning: the empire of Stalin, and its vassals, imitators, and admirers.

"as envisioned" just means some people once told a fairy tale about how nice things would be. The Heaven's Gate cult also "envisioned" riding to paradise on Comet Hale-Bopp.