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

#341

Post by Animats » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 6:29 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #106

dmitriy_ko wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is so ingrained now, nobody can even imagine that alternative system could exist. In the minds of most, communism is a synonym of authoritarianism. Communist governments tended to be authoritarian, but it's not clear to me if it's a natural consequence of communism. It's more likely that authoritarianism is a consequence of violent revolutions. Is it possible to combine communism with democracy?

I think it's more that authoritarianism is the natural state of human nature, and capitalist systems tend to be less authoritarian because they setup multiple competing authorities and provide a mechanism for the entry of new ones, and in the chaos that results ordinary people have space for liberty by switching allegiances between titans of industry. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" - James Madison, Fe…

Communism has a problem with coordination.

That's a classic observation. It may no longer still be true. Scaling works better now that we have enough computer power. Amazon doesn't have a problem with coordination. Nor does WalMart. Alibaba and Tencent don't seem to. All those companies are above the quarter-trillion dollar level. They approach the scale of the USSR's entire consumer goods economy.

There's no longer a limit on the size of a monopoly. It used to be that big companies had trouble getting out of their own way. The successful giant companies now seem to be past that problem. In a capitalist world, this leads to one big monopoly in each category.

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

#342

Post by dang » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

thinkloop wrote: post #308

dang wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're all the same, which means they're off topic here. Repetition doesn't fit with intellectual curiosity, and the purpose of the site is the latter.

This comment was about historical events and in direct response to parent, it does not reflect my own views or ideologies. Things that shaped the past seem relevant even if those things were ideological. This looks like censorship by users who just don't like the ideas (which are not necessarily my own). Anyway no problem.

It's not a question of the particular ideas, but of the class of ideas. The opposite ideas would be just as problematic because they belong to the same class—in this case, generic ideological discussion. The problem is that those only lead to the same recycled tangents over and over, usually with a downward spiral into incivility. They're closed systems that admit no new information. That makes them off topic here.

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

#343

Post by collyw » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

verylittlemeat wrote: post #327

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…

>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? Having children is a fundamental human activity. It gives people purpose, connection, novelty and a million other things I can't think of since I'm not a parent or a mother. As you say, many poor people have many children. Perhaps you should look into what…

It was you who called them "selfish idiots" not me. I know exactly what giving birth means.

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

#344

Post by mmcnl » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 9:04 PM UTC

elihu wrote: post #262

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…

Your example would create an opportunity for companies to relocate to areas where where "poor" people live (and buying a house is affordable).

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

#345

Post by PrimHelios » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 12:19 AM UTC

throwaway84742 wrote: post #63

Worldwide, if you make over $32k per year you’re 1%. I suggest folks think carefully about this fact before suggesting hanging the rich or anything else Marxist-Leninist. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...

Get the fuck outta here with your strawmen.

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

#346

Post by verylittlemeat » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 2:22 AM UTC

collyw wrote: post #343

verylittlemeat wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? Having children is a fundamental human activity. It gives people purpose, connection, novelty and a million other things I can't think of since I'm not a parent or a mother. As you say, many poor people have many children. Perhaps you should look into what…

It was you who called them "selfish idiots" not me. I know exactly what giving birth means.

>why would you want to bring a child into the world knowing the amount of suffering that its is likely to live through?

This statement is all but calling them selfish idiots. Your question is nothing but a self serving rhetorical for conclusions you already made.

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

#347

Post by theseatoms » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 2:41 AM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #291

theseatoms wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 anoth…

> 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?

Since "acquire" implies voluntary vacation of the premises by those who previously owned and occupied it, yes, exactly. I don't see a particularly problem with that scenario.

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

#348

Post by elihu » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 2:52 AM UTC

mmcnl wrote: post #344

elihu wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Your example would create an opportunity for companies to relocate to areas where where "poor" people live (and buying a house is affordable).

It would, for awhile -- until the real-estate speculators catch on.

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

#349

Post by jadedhacker » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #74

jadedhacker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that labels are meaningless. Capitalism is well understood to mean private ownership of the means of production. China is doing a lot of different things and most people understand that.

If it's so well understood why is everyone including those in power acting is helpless? Even the rich warn about the problems. I don't think things like "money", "capitalism" etc are well understood at all. It may not even be possible because those are very fuzzy terms that describe vastly different things depending on what aspects you are looking at and they consist of >90% context. IMO any discussion waving around…

That's kind of a confusing line of questioning. People are pointing out problems yes (I often agree with them, I'm a socialist), but that doesn't change the definitions of words. If we muddy the words, we won't even know what we're talking about and that favors the status quo. The remedy for ambiguity is clarity.

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

#350

Post by jblow » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 5:31 AM UTC

maoistinquisitr wrote: post #305

jblow wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The high student debt and unaffordable housing are almost entirely due to policies of the Democratic Party, a.k.a. the party that is supposedly trying to reduce income inequality. Interventions often don’t do what you wanted them to do.

I'm not a fan of Obama but one good thing he was doing towards the end was cracking down on fraudulent "higher education" programs milking students and the taxpayer. He was deliberately choking off the loan subsidy fraud game. Unfortunately, Trump immediately resumed the Bush policy of pumping up the student debt for worthless degrees bubble.

But that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that the legitimate schools have been able to raise their prices tremendously because the students have all this easy money given to them for just that purpose.