Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 368 posts

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

#311

Post by eeZah7Ux »

thinkloop wrote: post #90
Semaphor wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom is also a problematic word. I guess you could say that Europe has "more units of communism" than the US. But if you ask where a poor person is more free, you'd get quite different answers from different people.

The poor person has more choices because money was forced from a rich person to them (please keep in mind that I am not against this, it is likely the better system). But these are extremely different kinds of freedom. If you have an example of how the poor person was forced to be poor it would be important here.

> If you have an example of how the poor person was forced to be poor it would be important here.

You are really stretching the world "forced" here.

Still, a poor person that wants to survive has to choose between paying for food and rent or being arrested and imprisoned for theft. Which then implies being forced to work and therefore not having time and money to get better education and so on...

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

#312

Post by tibbetts »

charlesdm wrote: post #194
tibbetts wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters, and it might be ok if the wealthy were being nice about it. Unfortunately a very active subset seems to be bringing back feudalism. In the 20s-70s rich people were conveniently afraid of communist revolution and thus inclined to distributed gains. Without another credible threat of global revolution I don’t know how this gets fixed. Of course, communism did have downsides for the people who actually lived…

"Nice about it"? What should they do, hand it out to people?

Pay their taxes without whining or trying to take over the government. Don’t try to discredit science to protect your wealth. Consider the social costs of their investments. Engage in substantial philanthropy.

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

#313

Post by dwaltrip »

noobermin wrote: post #174
cal5k wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between Mao and Stalin alone you're probably talking 50-100MM deaths. That's one hell of a downside.

I assure you, capitalism has killed more people than that. We just don't call them victims of capitalism.

We're going to need more than assurances to see your point.

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

#314

Post by Tomminn »

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…

Capitalism is an efficient mechanism for serving dollar weighted people. This is the central problem with massive inequality.

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

#315

Post by dogma1138 »

iguy wrote: post #290
dogma1138 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we take the most theoretic and idealistic interpretations of Marxism you always have what is called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially the phase that all communist governments get stuck on because there is no way for it to evolve into anything but another dictatorship, free market democracy or pure anarchy. The idealistic state which is supposed to come aft…

I just don't know why we give these imagined phases any more credence than the coming of the Twelfth Imam. They simply aren't relevant for talking about the brutal 20th century system of organising human affairs called communism. (Or rather, perhaps, no more relevant than the details of the Imam are to understanding the Iranian regime. If you want to go deep and read between the lines in speeches etc, then of course…

Which phases? The dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially 20th century communism.

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

#316

Post by ksec »

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…

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

I dont think much has changed for bottom half living conditions. Especially since QE.

>People spend less as a percentage of income on food and housing

Is that true though? If you take any housing prices and rent and compared to salary in the last 10 years.

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

#317

Post by letslightafire »

iguy wrote: post #274
letslightafire wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can only think of China as an example of purposely limiting reproduction, what others are there?

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

#318

Post by mrhappyunhappy »

v_lisivka wrote: post #306
collyw wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just accept that people don't like your comment. What do you suspect? Russian bots?

Yes. I have 20 years of experience, so I know their pain points. The comment above is the one of them. Short after revolution in Russia, top communist had meeting about how many people they need to kill (so new, better Homo Soviet, will emerge and build communism). They decided that top 10% of population must be killed. These meetings notes were secret, but after drop of Iron Curtain, American scientists were able to…

How would we know if they are real? I'm interested in seeing.

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

#319

Post by cal5k »

mpweiher wrote: post #280
cal5k wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rat…

I'd be interested to read more on the topic if you have some recommendations?

My suspicion (hypothesis, really) is that CEO compensation is too abstract a concept to actually impact behaviour all that much. It might spark outrage when people think about it intensively, but most people would be more focused on specific, tangible barriers to their economic wellbeing. Examples might include applying for jobs, networking, performance reviews, salary compared to industry average for their role (higher or lower?).

I would imagine that behavioural economics in academia is probably very specific and attempts to be predictive, whereas behavioural economics in popular journalism is more philosophical and hand-wavy.

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

#320

Post by KozmoNau7 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #283
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.

Now we're back to the "no true scotsman" argument, a communist government is not a contradiction unless you go by the most extreme anarchist interpretations of communist doctrine. But sure show me how you transition from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase to this stateless paradise and I'll concede my argument.

Read Marx, then come back.
Post reply on HN