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

#291

Post by philipkglass » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 9:49 PM UTC

theseatoms wrote: post #267

philipkglass wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where market competition exists it's effective in limiting prices and spurring innovation. But the natural tendency of successful businesses is to minimize exposure to competition. That can happen by buying the competition even if there's no state. (You can argue that regulatory capture is how successful businesses minimize competition by using the state, and I'm sympathetic to that argument, but it's also just another example of the tendency to eschew competition.)

OPEC is frequently divided against itself in terms of production targets; ExxonMobil is not. In a world without states there's no antitrust regulation preventing ExxonMobil from acquiring a market share equivalent to present OPEC, then exercising that pricing power with more effective discipline.

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

An entity that answers to no higher authority and enforces its own territorial claims with force is a de facto state. I understand and sympathize with many arguments for personal liberty over the power of the state. I don't understand the implication that unbounded private power is more trustworthy. It's an affront to liberty for the State of Delaware to exist and enforce its laws at the point of a gun, but it's ok if a corporation or family can acquire a Delaware-sized, Delaware-shaped parcel of land and enforce its decrees at gunpoint within those borders? That may not fairly represent your point of view. I have previously had arguments where self-proclaimed anarchocapitalists affirmed that it's fine for a small group of people to wield power equivalent to a state government as long as it's not called a state.

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

#292

Post by coliveira » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #220

coliveira wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all it is an illusion to say that conditions have improved because of capitalism alone. In most of the places where people had some improvement, this happened because of socialist policies of wealth redistribution lead by the state, including in the USA. If you go back to the US of the 1910-1930s, most people lived in near poverty, with the "dream" of one day becoming something else, until a socialist plan o…

Further, even if we give 'capital' a pass (the use of imaginary points to grease the wheels of trade) and move on to the Free Market. A market works if everybody has something to trade there. For those that bring only their labor (whether ditch digging, medicine or engineering) they have a finite value over their lifetime - they will never be wealthy as the top 1% are. Now automate. We no longer need the labor of mil…

This just points out that capitalism as it is practiced nowadays is unsustainable. Not news, of course, the general functioning of the system is known since the 19th century, but the shoes are starting to drop. Since technological revolutions happen so fast, I wonder if we're already seeing the beginnings of the downfall of all this.

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

#293

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

perpetualcrayon wrote: post #170

dredmorbius wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Howso?

If beliefs were fluid and adapted continuously and were challenged by the current state of the world I would maybe argue differently. But ask yourself this. How frequently do you change your fundamental beliefs about how the world works? How do you think the people who enjoy success beyond your wildest dreams feel about changing the system that has benefited them and their families for countless generations? On top o…

Thanks, that clarifies and greatly improves your initial quip.

I've been changing numerous of my fundamental beliefs and can report that perssonally it's been difficult, painful, and disconcerting as hell. There's a quote on enlightenment by a recent Cupertino mystic I ran across a few years back:

"Make no mistake about it -- enlightenment is a destructive process. It has nothing to do with becoming better or becoming happier. Enlightenment is the crumbling away of untruth. It's seeing through the facade of pretense. It's the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true."

Slightly more: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/78lr8h/enlight...

As for human frames, world mental models, and ideologies, they seem profoundly tended to be highly self-serving, particularly of the powerful.

As to the relationship of wealth and power: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

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

#294

Post by v_lisivka » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:07 PM UTC

austenallred wrote: post #287

v_lisivka wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The comment read to me as "nobody cares, communists want to kill everyone that has the Internet." A pretty reasonable thing to downvote IMO.

You nailed the point, but these downvotes are suspicious regardless of that. I receive downvotes often, so I know the pattern. Two my comments are downvoted in short burst: 4 downvotes at once. This is why I asking to check downvoters for vote-ring or something like that.

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

#295

Post by iguy » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:09 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #215

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…

First of all it is an illusion to say that conditions have improved because of capitalism alone. In most of the places where people had some improvement, this happened because of socialist policies of wealth redistribution lead by the state, including in the USA. If you go back to the US of the 1910-1930s, most people lived in near poverty, with the "dream" of one day becoming something else, until a socialist plan o…

If you go back to the US of the 1910-1930s, most people lived in near poverty, ... until a socialist plan of wealth redistribution called new deal was implemented.

Actually the USA in 1910 was the richest society the planet had ever seen. This was why half of Europe was busy trying to move there, to start at the bottom. (It was poor by today's standards, of course.) It's a lie to claim they got rich "because of socialist policies".

The depression was a brief dip in the growth of the income of the average guy, over let's say 1870-1970. Things went backwards by the equivalent of about 15 years or progress (on average! it was rough for some). The effect of the new deal on ending this, or perhaps prolonging it, is a confusing issue. Certainly it paid some people's wages, and hit some rich people hard (and had non-economic implications too), but my understanding is that there's a serious argument that, without such action, the depression might have been sharper & shorter, like the 19th C ones.

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

#296

Post by collyw » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

throwaway84742 wrote: post #128

collyw wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top 1% of earning, not necessarily top 1% of wealth. I remember checking my moderately above average European income on a site that showed this. I think I was in or close to the top 1% of earners. But not being on the property ladder I think I was closer to top 6% by wealth. (It was a while ago so my numbers may be a bit out, but I hope you get the idea).

>> Top 1% of earning, not necessarily top 1% of wealth. When it comes to hanging the rich nobody cares about such details.

On a moderate but above average salary in Spain. If I get some inheritance when my parents die and have my own apartment paid off, then I could be in the top 1% in 20 years time. I am by no means rich by western standards, just a bit above average. Do you suggest we hang all pensioners who have paid of their properties and earned a reasonable wage throughout their lives in Western Europe?

Jordan Peterson seems correct for a certain percentage of people when he says 'Middle Class Socialists don't like the poor but they hate the rich'. Your comment comes across as backing that up.

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

#297

Post by v_lisivka » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #177

cal5k wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marxist reverence for the proletariat has been an enduring concept. The problem is that nobody has actually defined who the prols are - are they the factory workers? Entrepreneurs? Teachers? Accountants? Lawyers? Engineers? Civil servants? The US economy is crazy diverse. There really is no such thing as a unified working class struggling against "the man".

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

What about prostitutes?

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

#298

Post by collyw » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #147

collyw wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might do, though I find the discussion generally of a higher quality here than on reddit.

You might be pleasantly surprised. There are focused subreddits which are quite ruthless and thorough in their moderation style. For example, the modal discussion on /r/NeutralPolitics is far more productive and informed than on Hacker News. /r/AskHistorians is similarly remarkable. These subreddits require insightful commentary with citations to scholarly sources - anecdata, off-topic banter and trolling are virtual…

I have seen a few discussions on the change my view subreddit and its better then average, but I would still say its a fair bit lower than the standard of discussion here (at least for the subjects I saw).

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

#299

Post by ericd » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:25 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #288

ericd wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people talk about the top 1% owning almost all the wealth, they're typically referring to the global top 1% (at least that's the case with this article). The top quintile of the US is certainly considered rich globally, even if they don't feel like they are. I'm interested to see your source for the US tax receipts by quintile, though. I could definitely believe I was wrong about the richest portion paying "the…

If you want to count the entire world for wealth then you need to count the entire world for taxes too. I strongly doubt that the super rich are paying the vast majority of taxes worldwide. For US taxes, see: https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf The rate is definitely lower for poorer people, but nearly as much as the standard punditry, focusing only in federal income tax, would have you believe.

Unless I'm reading your source wrong, it looks like it says that the top 10% pays 50% of taxes?

I feel like I should make it clear that my personal opinion is that top marginal tax rates should be much higher than they are, especially on capital gains, but I don't think it's fair to say that the working class is paying all the taxes, given the breakdown.

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

#300

Post by collyw » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 10:26 PM UTC

lifeformed wrote: post #198

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…

Birth rate is a function of poverty. It's high in poor places, since the childhood survival rate is low, and you need extra children to help support family and community. As standards of living increase, birth rate drops, until it's at a sustainable 2-per-family, like it is in rich countries. Force poor people to have less kids, and you keep them in poverty. Improve their living situations and they'll have less kids.

I think there are a lot more factors that just wealth involved in the number of children. Religion being one. Culture being another.

I didn't say anything about "forcing" people to have less kids. But I do think we should encourage them. It would cost very little to feed people in extreme poverty, could you offer them that as an incentive not to have children? Offer them enough food for a family of three. If they want to have 5 kids, its themselves who will suffer? (Thats just a suggestion that I haven't thought through in any depth, I am sure there will be plenty of flaws in it).

On a side note, China has been growing very rapidly in the last few decades, and they had a one child policy for much of that.