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

331–340 of 368 posts

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

#331

Post by KozmoNau7 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #330
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read Marx, then come back.

I had, so again please tell me how we switch to communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat or any mechanism through which we can evolve through it and I’ll concede my argument. By Marks himself the dictatorship is a critical phase in the process.

That's a twisting of terms, in the correct context, it's a temporary switch from a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the opposite. The term dicatorship is only used because it retains the state, as it will not yet have withered away. Thus it does not meet the definition of communism.

But it is not the same as the common defition of a dicatorship, with oppression and selfish tyranny, which seems to be the association you want to make.

I loathe linking to Wikipedia, but the page in question does sum it up quite well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletar...

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

#332

Post by KozmoNau7 »

iguy wrote: post #326
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism in its real original meaning, yes. Not the perversions of later tyrannical dictatorships.

Well, the real meaning of words in English is defined by usage. And the English-speaking world spent half a century locked in cold war with an evil empire. That's what the word means. This imaginary utopia which some 19th writer dreamed up, to which said evil empire payed lip service, is a topic for those with special interests in 19th century utopian dreaming.

The English-speaking world spent most of a century deeply immersed in anti-socialism/communism propaganda, you mean.

This historical revision of "The US and capitalism did nothing wrong" needs to die.

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

#333

Post by gaius »

avar wrote: post #328
gaius wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is misleading too! In the UK there are millions (probably) of people who bought their houses before the recent property boom, who theoretically have an asset worth at least that much on paper. But since all other property in the country is similarly inflated, the wealth is not real in any meaningful sense. It’s just a number.

It's not really misleading, the index never pretended to adjust your assets for the local cost of living. It also matters in a real sense. Who do you think is better off in absolute terms? Someone who owns a paid-off 200m^2 apartment in London, or someone with the same size apartment in whatever dirt-poor country you could name? The person with the apartment in London could sell it and move to a cheaper country (or e…

It's not really misleading, the index never pretended to adjust your assets for the local cost of living.

Of course it is, because ummm you live somewhere. That should be obvious but perhaps it isn't. A person with skill X, a teacher say, can be in "the 1%" (global) in the UK quite easily, but the same person with the same skill doing the same work, would be worse off in another country, so what other than the local economy is the variable?

And someone in the global 1% in the UK is not especially wealthy because they need to spend it all straight away...

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

#334

Post by dogma1138 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #331
dogma1138 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had, so again please tell me how we switch to communism without the dictatorship of the proletariat or any mechanism through which we can evolve through it and I’ll concede my argument. By Marks himself the dictatorship is a critical phase in the process.

That's a twisting of terms, in the correct context, it's a temporary switch from a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the opposite. The term dicatorship is only used because it retains the state, as it will not yet have withered away. Thus it does not meet the definition of communism. But it is not the same as the common defition of a dicatorship, with oppression and selfish tyranny, which seems…

Again in practice how do we switch from A) to B), the truth is that you can’t and you won’t since any dictatorship will naturally always elect to preserve it’s power.

The stateless version of your so called communism is essentially pure libertarianism the problem is that both are just as impossible and unlike the latter the former cannot coexist with the free market of ideas which is the natural state of a nationless/stateless society.

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

#335

Post by galvin »

gwright wrote: post #279
noobermin wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 busines…

Net neutrality would be a good example.

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

#336

Post by KozmoNau7 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #334
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a twisting of terms, in the correct context, it's a temporary switch from a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the opposite. The term dicatorship is only used because it retains the state, as it will not yet have withered away. Thus it does not meet the definition of communism. But it is not the same as the common defition of a dicatorship, with oppression and selfish tyranny, which seems…

Again in practice how do we switch from A) to B), the truth is that you can’t and you won’t since any dictatorship will naturally always elect to preserve it’s power. The stateless version of your so called communism is essentially pure libertarianism the problem is that both are just as impossible and unlike the latter the former cannot coexist with the free market of ideas which is the natural state of a nationless…

>"the truth is that you can’t"

Only defeatist quitters speak in such absolutes.

Again, it is not a dictatorship in the commonly understood terminology, but rather a term that is used for a political system where one part has political power over the other under the existence of a state, because we don't really have a proper and precise term for it.

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

#337

Post by coliveira »

iguy wrote: post #295
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…

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 socia…

Do you know that real people need to EAT, right? If the big depression had been even worse, it wouldn't matter if it were shorter, because most people would be dead at the end. Humans can only go a few days without food and basic necessities. This shows why conservative thinking is a dead end.

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

#338

Post by theseatoms »

galvin wrote: post #335
gwright wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 busines…

Net neutrality would be a good example.

In what sense? ISPs are government-granted monopolies in the first place.

More on the issue: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju...

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

#339

Post by dogma1138 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #336
dogma1138 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again in practice how do we switch from A) to B), the truth is that you can’t and you won’t since any dictatorship will naturally always elect to preserve it’s power. The stateless version of your so called communism is essentially pure libertarianism the problem is that both are just as impossible and unlike the latter the former cannot coexist with the free market of ideas which is the natural state of a nationless…

>"the truth is that you can’t" Only defeatist quitters speak in such absolutes. Again, it is not a dictatorship in the commonly understood terminology, but rather a term that is used for a political system where one part has political power over the other under the existence of a state, because we don't really have a proper and precise term for it.

How do you call a system of government that by definition does not operate in a free market of ideas, respects individual freedom and property rights and consists of a monolithic political ideology?

>"Only defeatist quitters speak in such absolutes."

Can you have a system that does not conserve energy? No, there such things as absolutes.

Communism besides being the mother of all bad ideas and the most vile ideology humanity has created is also deeply internally flawed and essentially ensures that it's final outcome can never be reached.

And even if we take that final outcome as our starting point it has no mechanism to sustain itself once there is no government and now laws that dictate social behaviour anyone can do whatever they want and no one can stop them.

So if at T+0 we have the withering of the state and perfect communism at T+1 nothing would stop me from taking control over whatever resource I want and saying well fuck you now you gotta pay.

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

#340

Post by avar »

gaius wrote: post #333
avar wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really misleading, the index never pretended to adjust your assets for the local cost of living. It also matters in a real sense. Who do you think is better off in absolute terms? Someone who owns a paid-off 200m^2 apartment in London, or someone with the same size apartment in whatever dirt-poor country you could name? The person with the apartment in London could sell it and move to a cheaper country (or e…

It's not really misleading, the index never pretended to adjust your assets for the local cost of living. Of course it is, because ummm you live somewhere. That should be obvious but perhaps it isn't. A person with skill X, a teacher say, can be in "the 1%" (global) in the UK quite easily, but the same person with the same skill doing the same work, would be worse off in another country, so what other than the local…

I agree that if you're moving the goalpost to just take-home salary being in the global 1% is less meaningful. Someone with no assets and a $20k salary in NYC is dirt-poor, but if you've got that salary in say Morocco you're relatively rich.

But in your earlier comment you mentioned property ownership in some of the most expensive markets in the world, which is entirely different. That implies that you own hundreds of $K of an easily-sold asset, and you're only "poor" to the extent that you're unwilling to move.

As I noted the same could be said about someone with a penthouse in NYC. If they own a big part of a $10 million dollar house and struggle to make mortgage payments they're poor by this narrow definition, but of course that's an absurd way of looking at things. They can simply cash out and move somewhere else, unlike someone who's actually poor.

Being rich and having expensive tastes doesn't make you poor, it just makes you selective.

Still, to address this specific example of yours. Even someone who's struggling to get by in an area that's in the 1% of income worldwide is in a much better situation than someone who's struggling proportionally as much (when adjusted for purchasing power) in a much poorer country.

They're going to benefit from better public services, their kids will go to better schools and have better opportunities etc.

I think once you account for all of that the picture isn't going to look significantly different than if you'd just have looked at salary with no regard for local purchasing power.

Post reply on HN