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

#271

Post by iguy » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

curun1r wrote: post #187

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…

His argument is akin to arguing that the Soviets lost WWII because they lost so many more soldiers than the Germans. But that's not what happened. The Germans might have had a higher score, but the Red Army still pushed them all the way back to Berlin and Hitler died in a bunker. Success is measured in achievements, not by lack of failure. For the poor to stop breeding would be ceding their one and only competitive a…

conditioned to breed at or around the replacement level

The concept to read up on here is r/K selection. Life is certainly judged by how many offspring, but there are various strategies for producing them, and one of the trade-offs is number vs. investment in each. Among all animals humans are far at the r-strategy end (high parental investment).

But different societies choose slightly different points, probably related to their history of farming. And the richer countries today are those traditionally towards the r-strategy end.

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

#272

Post by adamlett » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:47 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.

Yes, imagine how much more competition there would be on the pharmaceutical market, say, if governments didn’t discourage innovation by demanding that products be tested and safe. Think of barriers to entry it creates in the chemical industry that waste must be discarded of in highly regulated (and expensive!) ways. Not to think of air travel, which is so regulated that I doubt we’ll ever see a startup in that market ever again. /s

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

#273

Post by wiz21c » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:51 PM UTC

cal5k wrote: post #105

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 main thrust is that this seems to simply be a consequence of differing ability/circumstance, and there is no counter-example in recorded history - even our views on the "noble savage" are probably skewed by the fact that large hunter-gatherer societies with enough wealth to allow accumulation have been stamped out. The follow-on question is: what do we do about it? Attempts to artificially "correct" inequality fo…

Fortunately, thanks to your solution, the basic services for the bottom 50% will make them no less free than slaves... (admittedly, history happens like that but it's been continually fought)

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

#274

Post by iguy » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:52 PM UTC

letslightafire wrote: post #121

collyw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see that as a counterargument, more of a strawman. Eugenics is based on the gene pool not on relative levels of wealth (as I understand it). Honestly, if you live in desperate poverty, why would you want to bring a child into the world knowing the amount of suffering that its is likely to live through? Yet the poorest people seem to be the most likely to have the most children. Maybe another way of phrasing t…

Most people who are that poor are not educated enough about reproduction to prevent childbirth due to lack of sexual contraceptives or information about safe-sex. They are born to absolute poverty and know little outside of their little town or country. Sex to them might just be seen as something you do with little to no consequence or something that just comes easily. What you see as suffering might be seen as norma…

poor are not educated enough about reproduction to prevent childbirth

Many people say this. But it's worth knowing that, historically, lots of societies firmly limited reproduction when they were as poor as (say) most of Africa is now. The methods varied.

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

#275

Post by v_lisivka » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:55 PM UTC

v_lisivka wrote: post #160

collyw wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should clarify if we are talking about top 1% of earnings, or top 1% of wealth. The housing boom in the UK in the last 15 years has made wealth very related to age.

Nobody cares. If you have computer and Internet, you are in top 5%. Communists says that they need to hung top 10% to "clear world".

These downvotes are suspicious. Admins, can you check them, please?

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

#276

Post by gwright » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC

adamlett wrote: post #272

gwright wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, imagine how much more competition there would be on the pharmaceutical market, say, if governments didn’t discourage innovation by demanding that products be tested and safe. Think of barriers to entry it creates in the chemical industry that waste must be discarded of in highly regulated (and expensive!) ways. Not to think of air travel, which is so regulated that I doubt we’ll ever see a startup in that market…

This seems to me to be the trap of a false choice between regulatory power without bounds vs no regulation at all. A much more interesting discussion would be about the proper scope of regulation.

To take your example regarding pharmaceuticals, instead of mandating a particular regime of testing and efficacy, why couldn't the government require products that have not passed that particular hurdle be labeled as such?

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

#277

Post by 0xcde4c3db » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:58 PM UTC

aquark wrote: post #39

forrestthewoods wrote: post #5

Top 1% Global Income - $32,500/year Top 1% Global Wealth - $770,000 assets via https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...

This feels like a large disconnect? Assuming these two sets of people are not the same -- there are a lot of people in the west earning > $32K a year and having less than $770K in assets. So they are in the top set but not the bottom. Since the cardinality of the sets is the same, where are all the people that have more than $770K in assets but earn less than $32K a year. Even a fairly modest 5% return would produce…

> Even a fairly modest 5% return would produce more income than that, or are the stats excluding investment income?

Perhaps unrealized capital gains are counted as wealth but not income? I've heard that it's possible through some legal maneuvering to "spend" capital gains without technically realizing it.

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

#278

Post by iguy » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:58 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #268

iguy wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Sorry I guess I was replying also to GP "That's not communism, though", who seems to be insisting that "communism" means only the mythical utopia.

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

#279

Post by gwright » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 9:02 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #270

gwright wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What government "power" is required to 'encourage competitors'? If there is business opportunity the market will attract participants all by itself without any need for government intervention.

In my experience, government incentives are generally misguided and force mis-allocation of resources. That is to say the government is distorting the market to favor activity that wouldn't otherwise be attractive to a business.

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

#280

Post by mpweiher » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 9:02 PM UTC

cal5k wrote: post #259

mpweiher wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> [Most people not CEOs → finance, inheritance, start COs]

Hmmm...I actually mentioned finance and inheritance. Both are at current scales arguably worse. Finance has devolved into rent-seeking that leeches off the real economy and caused the 2008 crisis, with virtually no consequences. Unlimited inheritance creates oligarchies with wealth and power that hasn't actually contributed to society.

> entirely symbolic ratio.

Er, no. Please read up on behavioral economics. If rewards are too lopsided, the game too obviously unfair, people stop playing. That's a really, really, really bad outcome. One we want to avoid at nearly any cost.