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

It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#31

Post by jonhendry18 »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #14
throw2016 wrote: post #11

The fantasists are back. If you can create so much value by yourself why even remain in society and crib for decades on end. Go create the value and enjoy it. Show us. No one will come to your wonderland to steal the fruits of your genius. If this anti-human ideology actually worked, these self appointed geniuses would have long left society and created value all by themselves, but currently its as petty as putting u…

He didn't say people can create value by themselves. I recommend you read the article more closely and truly understand what he's saying. I would argue his argument is overly simplistic for two reasons: * many of those who engage in nonremunerative work contribute just as much as those who have accumulated millions. Saying the 99% owe the 1% is just as much of an over-generalization as the reverse * many institutions…

many institutions allow people to earn wealth from activity that is socially harmful

Like SCL/Cambridge Analytica.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#32

Post by jonhendry18 »

squozzer wrote: post #6

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed some of Atlas Shrugged. >It's not the Henry Fords and Steve Jobs who exploit people. Problem is not all of the 1% is Steve Jobs, Henry Ford or Warren Buffett. It also includes, for example, royal families whose contribution is not intellectual. >When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible…

Plenty of CEOs are paid more than the value they provide.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#33

Post by bendlas »

beaconstudios wrote: post #26
bendlas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm certain, that there is a more effective model. It might or might not be known at this point in time and it might even be closer to social constructivism than to mechanistic pragmatism. Can you tell for sure? In any case, that's not the point I'm trying to litigate. What I'm trying to get at: Given the obvious flaws in pure capitalism (as there would be in any "pure" ideology), how can we reject the need for check…

one of the benefits of supply and demand is that it encourages innovation via the creation of untapped demand for novel products. I don't know what your idea of a constructivist model of value would be, but in my eyes that's an important role that LToV is incapable of fulfilling. Of course pure capitalism is a silly idea, assuming everyone is homo economicus you'd end up looping back round to feudalistic stratificati…

I don't know as much about labour theory, as you seem to think I do. I'm not trying to argue for any ideology and I find the reduction to a duality between supply-demand and labor-entitle overly simplistic. Those are ideological landmarks, for sure, but both are volatile in nature and both happen, whether it's allowed or not (even though the decision to allow is a big one).

Since you asked me about a constructivist model of value, let me try at a sketch (and put qualify with "in my mind" as necessary):

First and foremost, value is information, because it's a relation over facts, so relates facts to one another, puts them in perspective. What I think many people would call "true" or "real" values are those that can easily be considered facts in and of themselves, because all their relatives are known facts.

Those values, when considered closely, are few and far between and many intellectual currents, including science, have been devoted to finding more of them.

Social constructivism (a category, that includes capitalism as well as marxism, basically every model talking about people doing things with their lives), has the inherent problem that many of its facts are unknown. That's because people keep them secret, because they are part of their private lives, that they don't want other people to know about. Also, people change over time and so do their private facts.

Hence, in social sciences, it's _even_ harder to find meaningful true values and successful models have to account for large degrees of individual freedom.

Coming back to your argument, I categorically agree, that supply-demand creates untapped demand. I don't categorically agree, that that's a good thing. More concretely: Sure, free expression has promoted many good things, still, everybody has their own line about what they want to be allowed to be promoted and/or even sold.

In practice, I think for a functional state, it's much more common to defend the free market against yet another asshole that just found out that destructive behavior can give you a temporary advantage, but didn't quite figure out the calculation of long-term costs and / or doesn't care.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#34

Post by BLKNSLVR »

Jesus. Hasn't the Randian philosophy been deconstructed enough?

No income tax for someone that earns $1m+, but taxes on those who earn less? In what entirely silver-spoon-born-and-bred entitled mind does this possibly make sense?

Taxes create the infrastructure that makes society possible and the bigger the business / industry, the more it requires basic infrastructure in order to grow or maintain itself.

What more do people earning $1m+ want? Can they not sustain themselves and their families on $1m per year? Do they want to create enough value that their children no longer need to work? If so, then what of their value of hard work? What about the natural instinct of bequeathing their role as "boss" to one of their children? That doesn't feel earnt to me?

What of the large financial institutions role in money laundering and sub-prime mortgage disasters and where that has left the 99%?

Look at some of the findings of the banking royal commission in Australia to see the kinds of things large financial institutions do as run-of-the-mill if they're not regulated. These institutions are run by people earning significant coin and take advantage of those who are already struggling financially - the very reason they seek advice / help on financial matters.

I'm making assumptions above and targeting financial institutions above others, but the article name-dropped Goldman Sachs, and the golden parachutes and massive salaries that the kinds of people he's talking about already get make it sound as if he's complaining about how the silver spoon tastes.

The author of the article is a member of the Ayn Rand Institute. Which likely means he was converted as a teenager and hasn't been able to question these beliefs as that gets more difficult and depressing as one ages.

Also: Harry Binswanger was born and raised in Richmond, Virginia. He is an heir to the Binswanger Glass Company, founded in 1872 by Samuel Binswanger

In that context, this article sounds like "waaaaah, I'm hard-done-by, taxes are holding me back, government help me - by intervening as a government that doesn't believe in intervening"

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#36

Post by mywittyname »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #23
peatmoss wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A failed state is as laissez-faire as one can get! The state got so small it drowned in the bathtub, isn’t that the dream?

No it isn't. Laissez faire means everyone leaving everyone else alone, with government acting in the role of a referee. Any party that uses force to rob the life, liberty or property of others is violating laissez faire principles, and is fair game for retaliatory force by the government. Laissez-faire is an anarchic ideology.

> Any party that uses force to rob the life, liberty or property of others is violating laissez faire principles

The term to describe this party is, a "government."

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#38

Post by mywittyname »

nitwit005 wrote: post #35

Same old story. People rail against taxes, but want the things taxes pay for. I'm sure you could find someone making the same rant 150 years ago.

This is way worse than that -- he's literally saying that paying laborers is an "inhuman draining of the productive."

> But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him.

> The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains.

That's an enormously toxic view of the bulk of humanity.

Maybe he should head out to Trump Country and say to all those blue collar types that he feels they are hopelessly inept and contribute nothing to society and would starve without men like himself.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#39

Post by mywittyname »

craftyguy wrote: post #15
sli wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The metaphor there is trying to gouge/scam someone by pretending like the shininess of a penny is tied to its value. I can't read the article because of the paywall, but I'm a

> but I'm a Did you intentionally leave that to the HN comment reader to finish?

His comment is also behind a paywall.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#40

Post by mywittyname »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #34

Jesus. Hasn't the Randian philosophy been deconstructed enough? No income tax for someone that earns $1m+, but taxes on those who earn less? In what entirely silver-spoon-born-and-bred entitled mind does this possibly make sense? Taxes create the infrastructure that makes society possible and the bigger the business / industry, the more it requires basic infrastructure in order to grow or maintain itself. What more d…

> Which likely means he was converted as a teenager and hasn't been able to question these beliefs as that gets more difficult and depressing as one ages.

That explains why I'm having a hard time gauging whether or not this article is satire.

Post reply on HN