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

Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

evonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 222 posts

Re: Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

#121

Post by jonathanyc »

pitaj wrote: post #118
specialist wrote: post #87

Also true: Creating the middle class was a deliberate, hard fought policy choice. The USA has done it (massive redistribution of wealth) three times. We're overdue for the fourth cycle. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich [2003] http://a.co/6rMyoc1 "The Second Gilded Age has been staggering enough in its concentration of wealth to dwarf the original Gilded Age a hundred years earlier. Howev…

The middle class was not created via redistribution of wealth. It came about through wealth creation . It existed long before the New Deal and WWII.

If you’re going to make a drive-by comment whose content is just “the GP is wrong,” you should at least back it up with some evidence, especially when the GP has provided a source.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

#122

Post by mjfl »

ScottBurson wrote: post #108

Something came up yesterday, in the discussion about business schools, that I think is also relevant here. A lot of people — as in, practically everyone — has been persuaded over the last half-century or so that the board of directors of a public corporation have a legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value. The general acceptance of that fiction is resulting in a tremendous amount of wealth transfer from the…

Why does maximizing shareholder value imply a transfer of wealth from middle class to wealthy? Middle class people can and should be shareholders.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

#123

Post by ComradeTaco »

pitaj wrote: post #120
pdkl95 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> markets We regularly hear people concerned about the hypothetical existential threat of a paperclip maximizer AI being invented in the future, yet this concern reliably ignores the AI overlords we already have : paperclip^Wprofit maximizing corporations. The VM for this type of AI has an incredibly slow clock rate and an extreme CISC ISA that often modifies itself in the RTC interrupt. The AIs are not a future thre…

> unregulated capitalism Ah yes, the unbridled laissez-faire capitalist markets throughout the world. It couldn't possibly be that our markets are more regulated than ever before, or that the very regulations and bureaucracy meant to protect us have caused these failures. No no no, it's capitalism's fault. It's certainly not that government power has for decades been exploited by the incumbents to kill competition. T…

The US has allowed complete unbridled capitalism during the gilded age. Quoting Wikpedia "From 1860 to 1900, the wealthiest 2% of American households owned more than a third of the nation's wealth, while the top 10% owned roughly three fourths of it.[61] The bottom 40% had no wealth at all.[59] In terms of property, the wealthiest 1% owned 51%, while the bottom 44% claimed 1.1%"

So pure, unregulated capitalism, lead to wealth inequality far, far more extreme than our current situation.

58 Peter R. Shergold (1982). Working-Class Life: The "American Standard" in Comparative Perspective, 1899–1913. University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 5–7, 222, 224. ISBN 978-0822976981.

59 Steve Fraser (2015). The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power. Little, Brown and Company. p. 66. ISBN 0316185434.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

#124

Post by ScottBurson »

mjfl wrote: post #122
ScottBurson wrote: post #108

Something came up yesterday, in the discussion about business schools, that I think is also relevant here. A lot of people — as in, practically everyone — has been persuaded over the last half-century or so that the board of directors of a public corporation have a legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value. The general acceptance of that fiction is resulting in a tremendous amount of wealth transfer from the…

Why does maximizing shareholder value imply a transfer of wealth from middle class to wealthy? Middle class people can and should be shareholders.

Most corporate stock is owned by the wealthy: https://www.investopedia.com/news/stock-ownership-slips-ineq...

Furthermore, it is mostly hedge funds that benefit from short-term price gains, as they're frequently leveraged, often with options. Long-term holders like individuals and mutual funds are usually unleveraged.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

#125

Post by nickik »

jonathanyc wrote: post #121
pitaj wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The middle class was not created via redistribution of wealth. It came about through wealth creation . It existed long before the New Deal and WWII.

If you’re going to make a drive-by comment whose content is just “the GP is wrong,” you should at least back it up with some evidence, especially when the GP has provided a source.

Or you can look at basic math. The government budget was simply never large enough to redesrbiute the amoutn of wealth the middle class holds.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

#126

Post by true_religion »

jonathanyc wrote: post #121
pitaj wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The middle class was not created via redistribution of wealth. It came about through wealth creation . It existed long before the New Deal and WWII.

If you’re going to make a drive-by comment whose content is just “the GP is wrong,” you should at least back it up with some evidence, especially when the GP has provided a source.

The "source" is just inane fluff.

It reads like a book review. It hints at topics, but never declares what is to be said about them.

It was such an imposing wall of text, that I read it thrice hoping to fine anything that I could reply to in argument, but there's simply nothing there.

It's not evidence.

It's not a source.

It's not even an argument.

It's a teaser to buy the book and find out if the book has an argument within it.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

#128

Post by ItsMe000001 »

gaius wrote: post #114
ItsMe000001 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not change what I wrote. There is no time machine. What is produced now and the services brought now always are for the people living now. Now, whether society allocates less resources to some people and more to others despite being perfectly capable of producing enough for all is an entirely different question, that's a problem at any given point in time. Such as right now, today, in the by far richest count…

What is produced now and the services brought now always are for the people living now So farmers should eat their seedcorn now and worry about what to sow only when it’s already the next season?

You already know that your comment is not worth a response, so I'm just curious, why did you write it? There are better forums than HN for such a low level of discussion. Why are you here? Of course, your money savings translate into seeds for farmers... sure. Because if people didn't save money they would eat all the seeds! And then possibly the furniture or each other? Please go and troll somewhere else.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

#129

Post by Retric »

dmoy wrote: post #57
Retric wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top 0.1% has more than 3x what it used to as a share of the total economy. It's not really that the top 1% has more money it's mostly that the top 0.1% has vastly more money. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-i... PS: People often think of themselves as middle class but frankly 5million is far from it. 5 million means you can pull 250k per year safely and really should consider retiring becau…

Agree with your general point, though note a 5% withdrawal rate is likely not safe for very long term (especially if this hypothetical millionaire is not yet at normal retirement age).

If your aim is literally exactly 250k under all situations then it might be a very minor risk.

However, you don't need to pull 250k before taxes to match the equivalent of what a 250k salary provides after taxes due to preferential treatment of investments. And even less to cover what a 250k salary after covering retirement investments.

Re: Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen

#130

Post by [deleted] »

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #128
gaius wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is produced now and the services brought now always are for the people living now So farmers should eat their seedcorn now and worry about what to sow only when it’s already the next season?

You already know that your comment is not worth a response, so I'm just curious, why did you write it? There are better forums than HN for such a low level of discussion. Why are you here? Of course, your money savings translate into seeds for farmers... sure. Because if people didn't save money they would eat all the seeds! And then possibly the furniture or each other? Please go and troll somewhere else.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN