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

Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

review.chicagobooth.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 200 posts

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#11

Post by VeninVidiaVicii »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #7
VeninVidiaVicii wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...considering the exponential distribution of wealth." _That_ is the point

What is the point exactly? No policy is going to change the fact that the natural equilibrium for such systems is a Pareto distribution, AKA it follows a power law. We can definitely hope to change the constants of the distribution, but to fundamentally change such a distribution would really be a fool's errand.

As someone who holds a master's degree in economics, and is getting a PhD in genetics, I can tell you virtually everyone studying the "soft" sciences conflates observations with natural laws. There is nothing stating that a Pareto distribution is optimal. It's only a distribution based on observation, and it just happens. The underlying mechanisms are not immutable.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#12

Post by crooked-v »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #6

My issue with all of these discussions is that they invariably present ideas that are just too complicated, and our tax code is just too complicated as it is. Create a system that can be applied evenly, and fairly, from the top to the bottom and then I think you’ve got a great and novel idea.

When it comes to taxes, "evenly" and "fairly" are not the same thing. That's the whole reason we have tax brackets in the first place.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#13

Post by hannasanarion »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #7
VeninVidiaVicii wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...considering the exponential distribution of wealth." _That_ is the point

What is the point exactly? No policy is going to change the fact that the natural equilibrium for such systems is a Pareto distribution, AKA it follows a power law. We can definitely hope to change the constants of the distribution, but to fundamentally change such a distribution would really be a fool's errand.

It is not a universal principle that wealth must follow a power law, and even if it was, the coefficient need not be so extreme.

The wealth inequality in America is higher than it has ever been. This did not come about naturally.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#14

Post by conception »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #7
VeninVidiaVicii wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...considering the exponential distribution of wealth." _That_ is the point

What is the point exactly? No policy is going to change the fact that the natural equilibrium for such systems is a Pareto distribution, AKA it follows a power law. We can definitely hope to change the constants of the distribution, but to fundamentally change such a distribution would really be a fool's errand.

The point is that extreme wealth distributions push towards non-democratic societies. You like democracy, you like policies that promote it.

Also, “you can never change how it is!” is a nirvana fallacy; you certainly can make things better. It’s been done before.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#15

Post by rboyd »

dijit wrote: post #9

Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y. It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%

Seems like there were plenty of people in the 1% cohort that would have taken up the movement if they had found an even catchier soundbite.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#16

Post by hannasanarion »

xwdv wrote: post #4

Every time you talk about the top 1% or even the top 0.01%, you eliminate an opportunity to talk about how you can really help the bottom 50%. By constantly painting things as hopeless and unfair, all you do is stimulate rage.

That rage needs to be there so that we can change the system that produces and perpetuates the unfairness. Rage is a tool for electoral mobilization.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#17

Post by dmitryminkovsky »

dijit wrote: post #9

Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y. It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%

> Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#18

Post by lobotryas »

dijit wrote: post #9

Wasn’t that always the case. Nobody cares about the guy earning 250k/y. It’s the handful of people who control 90% of all wealth. “1%” was a catchy soundbite but it was always the 0.0001%

No, because it’s easier to go after and strong-arm or pass legislation against a guy earning 250k than a guy earning 250mm.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#19

Post by juliushuijnk »

xwdv wrote: post #4

Every time you talk about the top 1% or even the top 0.01%, you eliminate an opportunity to talk about how you can really help the bottom 50%. By constantly painting things as hopeless and unfair, all you do is stimulate rage.

You can talk about both.

Also, if it's not just painting, but actually unfair, then it's up to the reader to have an emotional reaction or not.

Post reply on HN