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

A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

cbpp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–196 of 196 posts

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#191

Post by jahaja »

conanbatt wrote: post #190
jahaja wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The middle class is not asking for progressive taxation of the rich for altruistic reasons either: they want the benefit of that taxation: access to housing, health, government jobs, college education, etc. This needs a change of perspective. The workers are the ones that needs to sell their labour to the rich. It's their work that's the base of the rich's gains. The rich are unable to get rich without them. The be…

But the poor are getting richer, thats working perfectly well. Its just the middle class isnt benefitting of it as much as the richest.

Uhm, this goes back to my first reply?

Furthermore it's in general a terrible argument since it can be more or less claimed by every despotic regime in history.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#192

Post by jchrisa »

roenxi wrote: post #135
zanny wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the implication is that Reagan instituted broad and substantial tax reduction for the rich in combination with the institution of enormous federal deficit spending in order to offset rising oil consumption following two oil crisis the previous decade? We saw how oil turned out in the long run. Reagans policies, if anything, only gave dictatorships another two decades of unmitigated dominance in an industry we have…

The theme I'm replying to is 'Regan's stated policy objectives were implemented in the 70s and were probable causes of rising income inequality'. Maybe policy settings were twiddled, but the sudden stoppage of growth is probably linked to resource growth tapering off. In a counterfactual scenario where some other set of economic policies were in place, you'd probably have seen income growth trail off regardless. The…

The answer is that if everything were the same but the rich had less money, is that the rich would be less in a position to capture the regulatory framework and tilt the playing field in their favor. Eg maybe without trickle-down, the factors that compounded into the Citizen's United decision would have fallen the other way, etc.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#193

Post by jeffdavis »

johnchristopher wrote: post #172
jeffdavis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that all the money is moving to those who own the most capital/machines. It seems to be moving to those that have the most data . Mark Zuckerburg has very little of what I'd call "capital" that actually produces stuff, yet he makes tons of money.

Means of production.

Are you saying that data is the means of production?

I would disgree. Advertising is more important because stuff is less valuable. Therefore the data (which enables effective advertising/selling) is more valuable than the means of production.

They certainly aren't the same thing. You can produce tons of stuff without data. You would just have no idea what to produce or how to sell it.

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#194

Post by djrobstep »

GabrielBen wrote: post #182
RobertoG wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you start with the idea that markets exist in the void, you are certainly avoiding the dirty world. For instance: assuming that property rights exist outside a political framework or power structures.

They don't exist in "the void". Property rights are fundamental to the free market ideology, as well as courts, police and military. It's the foundations of liberalism, with Locke, Adam Smith, etc. I reiterate that free market ideology is positive, while government intervention ideology is more normative: it says how things should be and tries to make it so. The best case of this has been obviously Communism and Fasc…

What is it that motivates you to be a booklicker for the rich?

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#195

Post by johnchristopher »

jeffdavis wrote: post #193
johnchristopher wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Means of production.

Are you saying that data is the means of production? I would disgree. Advertising is more important because stuff is less valuable. Therefore the data (which enables effective advertising/selling) is more valuable than the means of production. They certainly aren't the same thing. You can produce tons of stuff without data. You would just have no idea what to produce or how to sell it.

> Are you saying that data is the means of production?

No, I was thinking about the infrastructure (servers). I am saying that Facebook has the infrastructure (rackspace) to produce (or subsidize the production) content and the money actually goes to Facebook. I don't know if the reasoning is sound though: would a newspaper own the means of production if they owned the printing machines ?

Re: A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

#196

Post by jeffdavis »

johnchristopher wrote: post #195
jeffdavis wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that data is the means of production? I would disgree. Advertising is more important because stuff is less valuable. Therefore the data (which enables effective advertising/selling) is more valuable than the means of production. They certainly aren't the same thing. You can produce tons of stuff without data. You would just have no idea what to produce or how to sell it.

> Are you saying that data is the means of production? No, I was thinking about the infrastructure (servers). I am saying that Facebook has the infrastructure (rackspace) to produce (or subsidize the production) content and the money actually goes to Facebook. I don't know if the reasoning is sound though: would a newspaper own the means of production if they owned the printing machines ?

Servers are capital, I agree, but I don't think that's what makes FB valuable. The data is what's valuable, and I think it's a mistake to think of data as capital.
Post reply on HN