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

271–280 of 961 posts

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

#271

Post by [deleted] »

mindslight wrote: post #222
adam_arthur wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when coupled with the excessive fiscal stimulus. We should absolutely help those most impacted by the pandemic, but the amount of money being injected amounts to gross negligence. Why were people who made 6 figures and still employed being given checks, for example? The stock market is on fire, and many businesses are smashing earnings expectations, yet we inject another $2 trillion? I've got a sizable por…

> Why were people who made 6 figures and still employed being given checks, for example? Because it's easier to do this than to gauge need, and with the paltry amounts handed out it doesn't add up to much compared to the big picture. The real question is why this has become a political talking point, and the answer is to distract from that much larger rapidly-implemented scam of bailing out the bond market that you r…

[deleted]

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

#272

Post by mindslight »

renewiltord wrote: post #223
mindslight wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with income remaining stagnant, the prices for goods and services should have been continually going down due to technology and outsourcing. Price optimization is the fundamental mechanic of any market! For example, when most manufacturing was moving to China the promise was that it would benefit consumers via lower prices. However the Fed's overt policy is to erase these gains by printing money via low interest…

The price for goods is dramatically down. You can buy a 70" flat panel display for $500 today. And there's a lot of pseudo-productivity here that is mostly just rising healthcare spending (without commensurate changes in outcomes) and land value. This sort of makes sense since these sectors have massive capture problems.

> The price for goods is dramatically down. You can buy a 70" flat panel display for $500 today.

Tech itself is the exception that proves the rule. Its progress is so strong that it's becoming less expensive in spite of inflationary policy.

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

#273

Post by tehjoker »

h3rsko wrote: post #2

Inequality seems to be a completely pointless buzzword to me. The only thing that matters is if there are more or less poor people, and how poor are those people compared to similar percentiles in the past. It shouldn't matter how rich the richest people on earth are. I really love seeing people on the Internet try to convince themselves that because Bezos or Musk are worth $100B, they must be stealing it from poor p…

Rich people can exert leverage over less wealthy people. This is about whether you want a democratic society or some kind of feudalism.

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

#274

Post by artificialLimbs »

tylerhou wrote: post #227
tobmlt wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The Fed is stabilizing the price of the USD because of the coronavirus pandemic. If it were not printing money, then there would likely be a deflationary spiral that would cause a depression. That's one of the reasons why the Great Depression was so bad: the US was on the gold standard at the beginning. The US can't create gold out of thin air, so the USD started deflating, people stopped spending, and capital stoppe…

> ...increase the tax on capital gains...

How about proportionally? Stock trading apps now make it easy enough for Joe 6 pack to invest in the market at any income level. I could see a x% higher tax if you're buying 10,000 shares of Amazon, but it seems to me like putting < $1,000 in the market a month should be somewhat painless.

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

#276

Post by adam_arthur »

hedora wrote: post #260
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…

There's a hole in your argument: It takes $500 to build a well-diversified portfolio with a roboadvisor, and that portfolio will behave comparably to a larger one (it'll be a bit worse, but also taxed at a lower rate). So, if everyone invested their savings rationally, then when the Fed propped up stock prices, it wouldn't change the distribution of savings across the population. The real issue is that a larger perce…

Except high income earners can choose to invest a much higher percentage of their income.

I can invest 80% or more of my take home pay if I choose to live frugally. Somebody close to minimum wage can probably get somewhere closer to 10%, which would come at greater personal sacrifice.

Agreed that more people should participate in investing and there's an educational/behavioral component, but recent government interventions have been excessive and basically amount to inflation of asset prices.

Dropping interest rates helps people purchase a home "today", but home prices quickly appreciate such that the carrying cost of the home is exactly the same as before, just priced higher and weighted more towards principal payments.

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

#277

Post by pmiller2 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #206
pmiller2 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are arguing a minor, irrelevant, and largely incorrect point of semantics.

> Who owns the Federal Reserve?

> The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act to serve as the nation's central bank. The Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., is an agency of the federal government and reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress.

(emphasis added)

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

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

#278

Post by jay_kyburz »

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…

I don't feel like "inequality" is a problem in and of itself. I don't care that there are a lot of people with a lot more money than me.

I would get upset if they don't make a fair contribution to running and maintaining our society.

I get upset when I read that there are some very large organizations that don't pay tax.

I get upset when our government hands out bailouts.

I get upset when polluters don't pay to clean up their own mess.

I get upset when wealthy people use their wealth to exercise power and manipulate public opinion, so that my opinions are in the minority. :)

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

#279

Post by vorpalhex »

majormajor wrote: post #218
readams wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is, based on standard of living, would you rather be poor now or some time in the past? I don't think there's anyone who would choose the past.

Poor is a loose word, but there are quite a few people I grew up with who do basically the same job as their parents yet can't afford as much of a house as their parents did at the same age and have less future financial security (retirement savings, pensions, whatever) as their parents did at the same age. Their TV is bigger, but they're also much more stressed about their security...

I don't imagine it pays well to be a coalmaker or someone who makes horse drawn carriages either.

Is the market actually shrinking or just shifting?

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

#280

Post by glsdfgkjsklfj »

tylerhou wrote: post #227
tobmlt wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The Fed is stabilizing the price of the USD because of the coronavirus pandemic. If it were not printing money, then there would likely be a deflationary spiral that would cause a depression. That's one of the reasons why the Great Depression was so bad: the US was on the gold standard at the beginning. The US can't create gold out of thin air, so the USD started deflating, people stopped spending, and capital stoppe…

> by providing liquidity, which has the side effect of causing bad things because it lets the rich accumulate wealth.

curious, what if the people driving that engine opted for wealth tax instead? Wouldn't that be a win-win and your phrase could have been instead:

> by providing liquidity, with no side effect such as causing bad things because it lets the rich accumulate wealth.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Post reply on HN