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

America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 961 posts

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#201

Post by xorx »

throwaway123x2 wrote: post #187
User23 wrote: post #182

Usury, which is to say lending at interest, will inevitably in aggregate lead to a tiny minority owning virtually everything. This is obvious to anyone who has basic high school math and understands that interest compounds geometrically and wages grow linearly at best.

How do you run the economy without interest?

I've read some non-mainstream theories that economies based on cash accounts and equity-only investments are possible. Some would argue that equity-only investment arrangements are better for society, as they align interests between capital and production in a way that recourse interest lending cannot.

You can already see some fintech startups attempting equity-based home "loans", in which the "lender"'s lien is on a percentage of the future sale value of the home, not a fixed dollar amount. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

I'm not sure how financing on consumer debt like credit cards and non-commercial vehicles would work, though. Perhaps discouraging consumer profligacy would be a feature, however, not necessarily a bug.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#202

Post by throw0101a »

natenthe wrote: post #57

Correction: The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%. When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. Most importantly, when the Fed decides to print money ad nauseam, they create massive asset inflation, which steals from the poor and gives to the rich. T…

> When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich.

Or, you know, the Fed is not authorized to deal directly with individuals via the Federal Reserve Act. The Fed's job is monetary and financial stability through credit markets. That's the tools that it has, and it uses them when needed.

If you want to help individuals through taxes/redistribution, social programs, etc, then that's government spending which is controlled by Congress.

It's not the Fed's fault that politicians in the House of Representatives and/or Senate do not wish to pass legislation that authorizes these types of things.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#203

Post by exabrial »

syops wrote: post #188
exabrial wrote: post #143

Correction: The Government has seized 38% of my wealth by force. The top 1% I gave my money to willingly. One is extortion under the threat of cops wielding violence and jail time. The other is a free choice.

Every government has taxes. Running the government isn’t free. The cost of living in a given society are the taxes and abiding by the system of laws it has. In the U.S. you have the option of leaving if you find the cost too high. You willingly stay here and as such you ought to willingly pay the cost for doing so. Besides, are you certain the amount you pay in tax really ought to be considered yours? It’s strange pe…

I think it's absurd to defend the violent nature in which these funds are acquired, regardless of the outcome. The end does not justify the means.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#204

Post by 3327 »

tobmlt wrote: post #150
natenthe wrote: post #57

Correction: The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%. When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. Most importantly, when the Fed decides to print money ad nauseam, they create massive asset inflation, which steals from the poor and gives to the rich. T…

Yep. The fed is an engine, whose purpose is to move wealth silently from the masses to the powerful monied few, via time-asymmetric inflation. (Mostly Inflation of assets presently) The resulting data looks like corporations have used their power to directly disenfranchise/disempower workers, and so the mass clamber for protective laws. More laws will be enacted by those in power. The time is certainly right for it.…

Crypto, decentralized, the fed is done and done should they be foe good reason.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#205

Post by rizalp »

throwaway123x2 wrote: post #187
User23 wrote: post #182

Usury, which is to say lending at interest, will inevitably in aggregate lead to a tiny minority owning virtually everything. This is obvious to anyone who has basic high school math and understands that interest compounds geometrically and wages grow linearly at best.

How do you run the economy without interest?

By barter? By producing something valuable and exchange it through fair trade, and using sound money (not worthless currency)

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#206

Post by mixmastamyk »

pmiller2 wrote: post #169
stickyricky wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not imply "wealth inequality is the result of federal policies". It implies that the current transfer of wealth is a result of federal policy.

Well, considering how the comment literally says "Wealth inequality and social unrest in America is DIRECTLY related to corrupt and/or incompetent (you choose) Fed policies," you'll forgive me for disagreeing.

Federal != Fed, the reserve bank. Close, but not identical.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#208

Post by mempko »

shireboy wrote: post #127

I'm definitely not 1%, and sympathize with/understand somewhat some of these claims. Bail-outs and unchecked government spending or borrowing from future generations worry me. However I'm also pretty aggressive at investing. I feel like in general my retirement and taxable investing has benefitted me financially, though I'm solidly middle class. I feel (with data to back me up) like I'm upwardly mobile, though still…

>The main barriers to me personally are not billionares, but myself and my goals.

I believe this feeling is misguided and here is why. You would be richer today if there was more equality. But instead you are held back by the same forces that those at the bottom 50% are.

Even the rich managerial and technocratic class that you and I are part of (upper middle class) are poorer than we would be if it was more equal.

So in other words, you have been screwed too by the system. But because you don't feel screwed (despite evidence that you have been) is why it continues to keep going.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#209

Post by sfblah »

natenthe wrote: post #57

Correction: The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%. When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. Most importantly, when the Fed decides to print money ad nauseam, they create massive asset inflation, which steals from the poor and gives to the rich. T…

Very well put, and I hope at least some people read this and think about it.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#210

Post by credit_guy »

JamesLeonis wrote: post #122
natenthe wrote: post #57

Correction: The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%. When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. Most importantly, when the Fed decides to print money ad nauseam, they create massive asset inflation, which steals from the poor and gives to the rich. T…

Except this wasn't the federal bailouts. Those are an entirely different beast. It's talking strictly about income stagnation. The study shows that if wages kept up with productivity (as was the case in the immediate post-WW2 era) the bottom 90% would earn $2.5 trillion per year more. > We document the cumulative effect of four decades of income growth below the growth of per capita gross national income and estimate…

> The study shows that if wages kept up with productivity (as was the case in the immediate post-WW2 era) the bottom 90% would earn $2.5 trillion per year more.

The productivity growth is not a constant number. The productivity of a Machine Learning engineer has increased much more than the productivity of a gas station attendant.

Post reply on HN