Joseph Stiglitz Says American Inequality Didn’t Just Happen • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by closeparen » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 4:13 AM UTC

specialist wrote: post #190

WalterBright wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Creating the middle class was a deliberate, hard fought policy choice. The middle class appeared in the US right along with industrialization. You can see it in paintings of towns and such before the Civil War. All sorts of businesses and middle class homes. A few years ago a pre-war Mississippi steamboat wreck was dug up and it was stuffed full of trade goods for middle class people.

Phillips gives the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts as one of three times the US government choose to create a middle class. The alternative proposal was selling the land to raise money directly for the government. Imagine if that had happened. We probably would have had South American style share croppers in toiling in usury and enduring inequity.

Massacaring and redistributing the assets of another civilization is one way to make your own people wealthy, but depending on how you categorize Native Americans, I’m not sure that the Homestead Act actually increased the number of “middle class” people in North America.

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

#192

Post by closeparen » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 4:30 AM UTC

Jill_the_Pill wrote: post #181

sokoloff wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most commonly, it's $120K/yr in income based on a lifetime of two earners carefully saving (deferring current consumption-this is the "doing") and investing for their self-managed retirement. Couple A with $3MM in liquid assets and self-funding their retirement is not particularly better off than couple B[0] who has zero liquid assets and $120K/yr in state-funded pensions, yet couple A is the target of multi-milliona…

It's not scorn for Couple A, but rather for their cheerleaders. There is a real problem with setting an expectation for everyone to have had the financial skills and good luck of Couple A. I think that's more what people mean when they say "that's why there are unions and pensions . . . " -- to give security to large numbers of retirees regardless of their personal situations along the way.

>"To give security"

Missing an /s? The expected value of my Fidelity account is >$0, which is more than I can say for Social Security or public pensions in almost any state.

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

#193

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 4:45 AM UTC

bmpafa wrote: post #79

lumberjack wrote: post #76

Is this not true everywhere though? The only difference is that in some countries, you have 80% of the population within one tax bracket of each other, so it is really hard to pass legislation that will piss off 80% of the electorate. In more unequal countries, you have more stratified demographics, so you can pass individualized legislation that will only attack one tax bracket at a time, thus ensuring that you do n…

Unless you can short-circuit that system by convincing the lower tax brackets that their success hinges on minimizing the taxation of the top-bracket. Then the whole thing just sort of goes to hell.

That’s a nice theory. Except that the top tax brackets pay way more in income taxes, both in dollars and as a percentage of income.

Also, the viewpoint you advocate is extremely patronizing. It assumes that a large swathe of voters are just rubes who have been taken in by parlor tricks and sleight of hand. Have you considered the possibility that, instead, they have taken the earnest position that the point of democracy is not to use the votes of the many to take from the few, but rather to set up a system that is reasonably fair to all?

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

#194

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 4:47 AM UTC

ppereira wrote: post #10

The distincion between creating value and hacking the economic system is interesting. “Think of Alan Turing, whose genius provided the mathematics underlying the modern computer. Or of Einstein. Or of the discoverers of the laser (in which Charles Townes played a central role) or John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley, the inventors of transistors. Or of Watson and Crick, who unraveled the mysteries of D…

Though they were never rich, they will be remembered for all of eternity. Whereas history quickly forgets about the merely rich and famous.

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

#195

Post by dcow » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 4:52 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #173

dcow wrote: post #101

I've heard the argument before that you want to encourage, as the article calls it, rent seeking because it demonstrates flaws in the market/regulation and if more people exploit them they become more visible. When they're sufficiently visible they can be addressed by the public. It seems like this cycle must exist in order to make progress in economic regulation. It also feels like a society needs a strong leader wh…

Source?

An old economics major roommate.

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

#196

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 5:14 AM UTC

specialist wrote: post #190

WalterBright wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Creating the middle class was a deliberate, hard fought policy choice. The middle class appeared in the US right along with industrialization. You can see it in paintings of towns and such before the Civil War. All sorts of businesses and middle class homes. A few years ago a pre-war Mississippi steamboat wreck was dug up and it was stuffed full of trade goods for middle class people.

Phillips gives the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts as one of three times the US government choose to create a middle class. The alternative proposal was selling the land to raise money directly for the government. Imagine if that had happened. We probably would have had South American style share croppers in toiling in usury and enduring inequity.

The Homestead Act applied in the slave south, too, but the slave south did not grow wealthy nor did much of a middle class arise. It could not even provide shoes for the rebel army.

There was also a system for allocating land to the pre-Revolutionary colonists, but I don't recall the details.

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

#197

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 5:25 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #191

specialist wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phillips gives the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts as one of three times the US government choose to create a middle class. The alternative proposal was selling the land to raise money directly for the government. Imagine if that had happened. We probably would have had South American style share croppers in toiling in usury and enduring inequity.

Massacaring and redistributing the assets of another civilization is one way to make your own people wealthy, but depending on how you categorize Native Americans, I’m not sure that the Homestead Act actually increased the number of “middle class” people in North America.

Any explanation for the wealth of the US would also have to explain why it didn't happen for S. America.

After WW2, the Soviets trucked every asset they could out of Germany to the USSR, but what was left still produced a much wealthier middle class than in the post war USSR.

I suggest the historical record is that massacring and seizing doesn't produce a middle class.

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

#198

Post by specialist » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 5:25 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #191

specialist wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phillips gives the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts as one of three times the US government choose to create a middle class. The alternative proposal was selling the land to raise money directly for the government. Imagine if that had happened. We probably would have had South American style share croppers in toiling in usury and enduring inequity.

Massacaring and redistributing the assets of another civilization is one way to make your own people wealthy, but depending on how you categorize Native Americans, I’m not sure that the Homestead Act actually increased the number of “middle class” people in North America.

No contest.

I'm just pointing out that the creation of a middle class is a deliberate policy choice, not the magical outcome of Freedom Markets™ fairie dust.

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

#199

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 5:29 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #196

specialist wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phillips gives the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts as one of three times the US government choose to create a middle class. The alternative proposal was selling the land to raise money directly for the government. Imagine if that had happened. We probably would have had South American style share croppers in toiling in usury and enduring inequity.

The Homestead Act applied in the slave south, too, but the slave south did not grow wealthy nor did much of a middle class arise. It could not even provide shoes for the rebel army. There was also a system for allocating land to the pre-Revolutionary colonists, but I don't recall the details.

[deleted]

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

#200

Post by specialist » Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 5:37 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #197

closeparen wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Massacaring and redistributing the assets of another civilization is one way to make your own people wealthy, but depending on how you categorize Native Americans, I’m not sure that the Homestead Act actually increased the number of “middle class” people in North America.

Any explanation for the wealth of the US would also have to explain why it didn't happen for S. America. After WW2, the Soviets trucked every asset they could out of Germany to the USSR, but what was left still produced a much wealthier middle class than in the post war USSR. I suggest the historical record is that massacring and seizing doesn't produce a middle class.

I found Hernando de Soto's Mystery of Capital compelling.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/86154.The_Mystery_of_Cap...

Though I haven't kept up on all the subsequent criticisms and refinements, I'm confident his central thesis is solid. At least solid enough to be worth criticizing.