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

#261

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:32 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…

[deleted]

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

#262

Post by elihu » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:34 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…

> Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition

In some areas that's true, but in others it isn't. There's only so much land, and if rich people own all the best places to live (i.e. the ones within reasonable driving range of jobs), then the poor people are stuck paying rent.

Other examples are that the rich have a disproportionate influence on the political process, have greater control of the media, and increasingly (thanks to Facebook, Google, etc.. and advances in machine learning) they have fine-grained knowledge of the opinions and preferences of whole populations, knowledge which is used specifically to influence the behavior of those people -- mostly through ad placement, but also to influence elections (e.g. the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal).

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

#263

Post by noobermin » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:34 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #217

noobermin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're just talking about Marxian definitions, it's simple: Owns means of production: bourgeousie Works without owning means of production: proletariat

Where do all the workers who have 401k plans composed of shares of all the public companies in the US fit?

I'm not sure what you're trying to do. Do you want to have a sincere discussion or do you want to just debate semantics and pull out exceptions?

Do those workers have say in their economic situation? Can they change the direction of their company without losing their jobs? Do they have economic and political power?

Stop equating stock ownership in a fund as if it is "owning the means of production." You know that it is a mere extension of the word "own" and it probably doesn't refer to what Marx talked about, so stop trying to twist definitions and thinking it counts as sincere argument.

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

#264

Post by sykh » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:35 PM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #239

sykh wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We’ll certainly don’t not accept my clarifications. At some point it is just being pig headed to do otherwise. I don’t need to reread my original comment because I know what I intended b6 it. I’ve since clarified.

An expert claims inequality is less of a concern than it used to be. I wonder why due to attitudes like “keeping up with the joneses”, jealousy and similar emotions. Have those gone by the wayside since those in the bottom economically are better off now? It’s a legitimate question. You apparently don’t know the answer or don’t care to answer it. Why then comment at all?

What do you hope to gain by your posts? In what way do they contribute in a positive manner? I’m clearly not denigratingmthise with real struggles, I’ve said as much directly yet you persist. It’s quite fascinating.

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

#265

Post by iguy » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:36 PM UTC

RealityVoid wrote: post #258

iguy wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that's exactly my point. These are the systems for deciding who does what. The incentives are purely monetary only under the 3rd system. Under the 1st & 2nd systems, not doing what you're supposed to do results in violence.

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

#266

Post by dgudkov » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:36 PM UTC

YorkshireSeason wrote: post #175

dgudkov wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Communism went away. Not really. Plenty of people now pushing for the equality of outcome. Which is a cornerstone of communism.

Marx and Engels most certainly did not think equality of outcome was a cornerstone of communism, on the contrary. Just think about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" from Marx Critique of the Gotha Program . Clearly administering goods according to need is antithetical to equality of outcome. Marx/Engels thought that equality in general, was a concept used by the "bourgeoisie" to man…

This is theoretical communism. The actual communism (that was supposed to be gone) was far from it.

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

#267

Post by theseatoms » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:37 PM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #192

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.

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 pr…

> Its monopolistic aims are actually hobbled by the diverse ownership of the oil fields of its members.

So, "competition"? Cartels in general are unstable because of these internal competitive forces.

I get that corporations with large market share can set prices in the short term. But every resource has a substitute. Even oil. So even price-setters have to operate within limits or risk their power being marginalized.

I am picturing the elimination of the state. And I agree that one can enforce his own property rights.

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

#268

Post by noobermin » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:37 PM UTC

iguy wrote: post #252

noobermin wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm sort of agreeing with you? My point is leftists say communism and mean something different (some leftists don't even consider Stalin a proper communist, Trotskyists for example) but people outside use it as a blanket term for the left. Even some in the US call conservative democrats "communists".

Regardless, it's just a word. My point is people commenting don't know the difference anyway, it's best to just read their comment as referring to "those authoritarian states that called themselves communist."

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

#269

Post by cal5k » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:40 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #257

cal5k wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

This is actually a perfectly logical thing for Canada to do given our geographic proximity and economic ties.

Do you know what would happen if the US suddenly dropped its defense budget and pledged not to defend its NATO allies? We'd spend more on defense. Although to be frank, the idea of Canada facing China solo in a military conflict is ridiculous.

In 2017 we spent around $19B on a federal budget of about $311B. If you accounted for provincial budgets, it's probably close to $500B in annual expenditures. We could easily triple our military spending without adversely affecting the economy.

The more important question: why does the US spend so damn much?

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

#270

Post by noobermin » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:43 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #249

pohl wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet a powerful government is really good using its power to limit competition, discourage competitors, protect incumbents, and so on.

A powerful government is also really good at using its power to increase competition, encourage competitors, protect new comers, and so on. And a powerful government in command of its people will do more of that.