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

How to Steal a Billion

oversharing.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#121

Post by gremlinsinc »

hanniabu wrote: post #73
ksdale wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's especially interesting, because although a billion dollars is a staggering amount of money for one person to possess, if you distributed the wealth of the world out to every single person evenly, it would only be something like $50,000 per person (based on some quick Googling), which is a life changing amount of money, to be sure, but it's a one time deal. It's not $50,000 per year of income, it's $50,000, perio…

From my calculations of a total redistribution of money, which will be more than just redistributing funds from the wealthy, you'd have this: Global money: $90,400,000,000,000 Global population: 7,742,131,000 Money per person: ~$11,650

Except some countries 10k is like 100k in U.S.A if you calculated for local costs of living and adjusted you could get away w/ giving 2-3 billion $1k, and then higher amounts to those in the U.S.A. -- you could skip China because they're already a socialist country and should have all their needs met, and skip bad actors like N. Korea, Iran, etc... Might be able to get it up to something like 150k-200k per person in developed world.

But money gets spent it all will end up back in the top 1%'s hands. They have funnels in place to ensure that money funnels up into their hands. Which is why GBI makes more sense, by giving money gradually/recurring it keeps cycling. The poorer families getting GBI would spend 100% locally essentially keeping the money in the local economy.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#122

Post by enraged_camel »

rayiner wrote: post #108
enraged_camel wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing about rayiner's post is that the language he uses is quite informative of his political views. Notice how he uses the phrase "confiscate wealth" to describe taxation, as opposed to, say, "paying their fair share".

My political views are pro-taxation and pro-public services. (Except we should have the Swedes or Singaporeans come over to run our public services.) Which is why I think waging a class war against billionaires for a piddling $275 billion in additional revenue, while not increasing taxes on people making up to $250,000, is pure insanity. European countries have figured out how to pay for public services with middle c…

Warren's tax plan starts at the $50 million threshold. Not sure why you are counting only billionaires, or only the top 400.

Her math adds up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/05/warrens-p...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/opinion/did-warren-pass-t...

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#123

Post by gremlinsinc »

rayiner wrote: post #61
wycy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lost in points like this, where you’re trying to scare people by saying a large number, is that the distinction between a Medicare for All type of system and the current private system is less about how much it costs and much more about who the middleman is. * In M4A, Americans will pay ~$30T/10yr to providers through the government as a middleman. * In the current private system, Americans will pay ~$30T/10yr to pro…

My point wasn’t to take a dig at M4A. (I'm a proponent of universal healthcare, though I'd prefer extending ACA.) I mentioned it because OP talked about sweating medical bills. The point is that the cost of providing healthcare to everyone is vastly more than the wealth of even billionaires. (By the way, the expert estimate linked from Warren's own site is $52 trillion/10 years, not $30 trillion.)

No, but her plan isn't the only one out there. Bernie's plan was estimated I believe at 23 billion over 10 years, which a right wing think tank actually (accidently) proved would cost less than we're paying now.

But in 25 years how much does the system improve, what if it's like 50T over the 1st 10 years, then 30T the 2nd because of gains in efficiency? There's a lot of 'in the air' variables as well, where it could end up being 30 or 40T over 10 years if the efficiencies are higher than expected or if we can better negotiate terms w/ drug companies.

If we legalize weed and shrooms and tax them at the national level, that itself would also be a great way to gain money for healthcare. We also can easily halve our military spending and still have a strong national defense. Also adding a VAT may be a good idea, we could even give discounts to citizens so immigrants and visitors travelling in America also help offset our healthcare costs. For instance say vat is 4%, and we charge 12% for non-citizens it would A. discourage illegal immigration, and B. it would stop people worrying about immigrants because they'd have to pay higher VAT than everyone else, so they'd be tax payers and not just 'using the system'...

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#124

Post by blurbleblurble »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #85
blurbleblurble wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People obsessed with "how will we pay for it" just don't understand. The skewed distribution of wealth creates a situation where people don't have time and energy left over from their hustle to take care of themselves and to take care of each other in basic ways. People are sacrificing to the gods of capitalism. Correcting the skewed distribution of wealth would shift agency back to people to mind the business of liv…

>The skewed distribution of wealth creates a situation where people don't have time and energy left over from their hustle to take care of themselves and to take care of each other in basic ways. Can you help me understand this better? Because I see this sentiment often. I'm just gonna do some quick math... Bezos + Gates + Musk + Zuckerberg = let's round up to $300 Billion. Divide that evenly among the 327 million US…

Right now, people with a lot of money basically dictate how people with not enough money use their time. How do they do this? By effectively withholding housing and food unless the people with not enough money do the work that the people with more money tell them to do... Often at the cost of taking care of their kids, of their bodies, of their mental health, of their living spaces. Money as a tool for distributing resources and collective decision making is at odds with money as a tool for domination, exploitation and extortion.

Modifying the distribution of wealth isn't about chopping up the richest peoples money and handing it out to everyone else. It's about altering the flows of the dynamical system so that power is continually distributed in an equitable way, one that optimizes more peoples' ability to thrive and co-create healthy lives.

It's about changing the meaning of having vs not having money, it's about reducing the intensity of the leverage people have over one another, and about freeing people to have basic autonomy and agency in their lives.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#125

Post by dls2016 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #85
blurbleblurble wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People obsessed with "how will we pay for it" just don't understand. The skewed distribution of wealth creates a situation where people don't have time and energy left over from their hustle to take care of themselves and to take care of each other in basic ways. People are sacrificing to the gods of capitalism. Correcting the skewed distribution of wealth would shift agency back to people to mind the business of liv…

>The skewed distribution of wealth creates a situation where people don't have time and energy left over from their hustle to take care of themselves and to take care of each other in basic ways. Can you help me understand this better? Because I see this sentiment often. I'm just gonna do some quick math... Bezos + Gates + Musk + Zuckerberg = let's round up to $300 Billion. Divide that evenly among the 327 million US…

> Do you believe that I will take better care of myself or be a better father in the long run if I get a one-time bonus of $917?

Your POV fails to take into account the utility and time-value of the redistributed dollars. It's the difference between some unelected doofus having tons of power because of their stationary dollars, or building a universal pre-k and/or healthcare system.

I know I'd personally work less if I wasn't "blessed with the opportunity of choice" of terrible insurance plans offered by my employer where an emergency appendectomy leads to $5k in bills... or if I could work 75% time and reduce daycare hours.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#126

Post by simonh »

JohnFen wrote: post #116
bilbo0s wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what simonh is saying is that the employees knew what WeWork was. (They were the ones who created the spreadsheets and charts that outlined what was going on and presented it all to the investors in several separate acts of galling transparency.) The investors knew what WeWork was. All of that data was, again, transparent to the point of insult. Contractors may not have known, but certainly had access to the…

Yes, I understand what he was saying, and I also understand the sentiment. I disagree that all of that collateral damage should be written off as "they should have seen it coming", though (although I'm OK with that stance for the major investors). This part: > Contractors may not have known, but certainly had access to the same information everyone else had and could have known had they actually reviewed the informat…

They got work they wouldn’t have otherwise had. I’ve been made redundant before, but don’t hold any grudge. I don’t expect a contract for life, if my employer can’t or doesn’t need to pay me anymore I don’t feel they owe me an eternal salary, I’m grateful for the work and compensation I got. This attitude that any employment is immoral if it’s not for life makes no sense to me.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#127

Post by ido »

christiansakai wrote: post #55
CptFribble wrote: post #13

That's the funny thing about Billions-with-a-b: normal thinking about money and value just doesn't work IMO. The Vision Fund is going to lose ~$19 billion. But Masa Son still controls over $80 billion. That's more wealth and power than almost any human being will ever have in history, ever. At that point the numbers don't even matter. Maybe Neumann took Masa Son for $50 billion. Who cares? A person can live in the US…

I am curious on how a person can live in the USA for their whole lives for $3 - 5 million. Serious question.

don't live in San Francisco.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#128

Post by dls2016 »

Thriptic wrote: post #119
dls2016 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be a jerk, but I feel this perspective is meaningless from the get go. Redistribution/politics is about the marginal utility of a dollar and the time-value of the application. A dollar in a billionaire's account is worthless. Using those dollars to build a universal pre-k or healthcare system will generate more wealth than a one-time $50k payout.

I don't think it's that simple. Sure, money in a billionaire's possession probably isn't going to be used for consumption, but it's not like that money is chilling in a matress somewhere; it is invested. Those funds are a source of capital for public companies, seed funding for small businesses, VC investments for growing companies, charitable contributions potentially, even funds for countries through bonds etc. I'm…

Sure... but there are two simple facts: a) billionaires are unelected and b) they dictate the usage of vast quantities of resources.

Personally, I believe this is immoral.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#129

Post by tptacek »

wycy wrote: post #56
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people out here are sweating medical bills in the low $10,000's, while the news is talking about billions being gained and lost in the span of a few weeks - so fast it makes you wonder if that amount of wealth really even existed in the first place. If people lose confidence in the system because of that it’s because they can’t multiply. Billionaires are very rich compared to middle class people, but there are…

Lost in points like this, where you’re trying to scare people by saying a large number, is that the distinction between a Medicare for All type of system and the current private system is less about how much it costs and much more about who the middleman is. * In M4A, Americans will pay ~$30T/10yr to providers through the government as a middleman. * In the current private system, Americans will pay ~$30T/10yr to pro…

This is maddening. The problem with the US healthcare system is that we're paying ~$30T/10yr†, not who we're paying it to. The idea that locking those exorbitant costs in would be a win is baffling.

The efficiency gains of single payer are overrated. We pay more than other countries do in admin overhead, but admin overhead itself is a small fraction of total costs, and as a percentage of our spend, admin costs would necessarily rise, probably dramatically, if Medicare starts covering 30 year olds in addition to 68 year olds.

† I'm just taking your number here, not interrogating it.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#130

Post by tptacek »

enraged_camel wrote: post #106
wycy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lost in points like this, where you’re trying to scare people by saying a large number, is that the distinction between a Medicare for All type of system and the current private system is less about how much it costs and much more about who the middleman is. * In M4A, Americans will pay ~$30T/10yr to providers through the government as a middleman. * In the current private system, Americans will pay ~$30T/10yr to pro…

The other thing about rayiner's post is that the language he uses is quite informative of his political views. Notice how he uses the phrase "confiscate wealth" to describe taxation, as opposed to, say, "paying their fair share".

This comment doesn't say anything; it's simply innuendo.
Post reply on HN