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

811–820 of 961 posts

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

#811

Post by chii »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #470
LanceH wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use of "taken" panders to the view of wealth being a zero sum game, which is decidedly false.

Not decidedly false at all. This is the one part of the LVT that I actually agree with. Wealth is a zero sum game. The only ultimate source of real value in the world is from labor applied to material of the world. Time spent laboring towards one thing trades off with time spent laboring for another. Seems zero-sum to me given that financial capital does nothing to increase real value or real wealth.

capital allows the labour specialization to exist. After all, capital is 'saved up labour', available for expenditure for future purposes.

Imagine if you wanted to manufacture a car, which takes a long time to make. If you didn't have capital, you'd have to find/forage for food, and have very little spare resources left to actually do the car manufacturing. If another person, with a large storage of food, gave you said food, but ask in return, for the car, it would work (it's just a matter of negotiating an exchange rate between the food and the car).

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

#812

Post by dnautics »

notahacker wrote: post #533
brobdingnagians wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their main point is that mathematical models, without connection to reality and logically tracing out the fundamentals of how and why people act, are dangerous in isolation. Statistics is useful, but statistics can lie. Having a conceptual framework of why people do things is valuable. Then add the mathematical models on top.

Sure, but having a conceptual framework of why people do things, with models on top [theoretical and empirical] is how mainstream economics works. Pointing out conceptual flaws in each others' models and how that leads to prediction error is how economists debate. The Austrian School on the other hand, is centred on Mises, whose magnum opus insisted that all his conclusions were logically deduced from the premise "hu…

The problem is that mainstream economics fails to accept that the choice of metric to perform their analyses encodes biases. Ivory tower economists don't really grok what affects the working class. (I can't say I totally do myself, but at least I drove for Lyft full time for a year and a half).

Mainstream economics says that monetary intervention is necessary to "stabilize" the economy, as measured by metric X Y or Z. Who benefits from that stability? I would say mostly the upper echelon status quo. And what is the social cost of the stability? Mainstream economics also measures the widening wealth gap but it's incredibly infuriating that they can't fucking put two and two together and understand that the gap is the social cost of their stability measures. Especially so since there is a clear straight line mechanism for that to be the case.

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

#813

Post by cryptocrypter »

Population has grown, industries have changed.

What exactly have "the rich" done to "take from the bottom"?

Let's say "the rich" would have done nothing.

Would Ford's Factories in Detroit still exist, churning out the same cars they built in the 60s, only employing more people doing so?

I don't think so. To keep "the bottom" employed at the same level as in the past, somebody had to create new industries and businesses. Why is it the responsibility of the 1% to somehow magically do that?

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

#814

Post by iso1631 »

Arc_Angel wrote: post #173
iso1631 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do Bezos and Musk have significant investments outside of Amazon/Muskinc? If Amazon suddenly was nationalised with no compensation for shareholders, what would Bezos' assets be? I'm sure he wouldn't be destitute, but it's not like someone who's become wealthy by shuffling money around (like wall street billionaires).

Koch Bros didn't use their money to influence govt Policy?

Sure, but they're not in the same group as Musk and Bezos who are wealthy because the company they built happens to be valuable.

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

#815

Post by notahacker »

dnautics wrote: post #812
notahacker wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but having a conceptual framework of why people do things, with models on top [theoretical and empirical] is how mainstream economics works. Pointing out conceptual flaws in each others' models and how that leads to prediction error is how economists debate. The Austrian School on the other hand, is centred on Mises, whose magnum opus insisted that all his conclusions were logically deduced from the premise "hu…

The problem is that mainstream economics fails to accept that the choice of metric to perform their analyses encodes biases. Ivory tower economists don't really grok what affects the working class. (I can't say I totally do myself, but at least I drove for Lyft full time for a year and a half). Mainstream economics says that monetary intervention is necessary to "stabilize" the economy, as measured by metric X Y or Z…

> Mainstream economics says that monetary intervention is necessary to "stabilize" the economy, as measured by metric X Y or Z. Who benefits from that stability?

The people who lose absolutely everything they've ever worked for in the event of a sustained recession. They tend not to be rich, nor comfortable with the rival Austrian solution of waiting it out because if wages drop low enough the rich might eventually deign to act by unburying their gold and investing in capital formation and job creation again.

> it's incredibly infuriating that they can't fucking put two and two together and understand that the gap is the social cost of their stability measures

It's incredibly frustrating when the school of economics most founded by a man who stormed out of a meeting of the right wing Mont Pelerin society screaming "you're all a bunch of socialists" for discussing possible solutions to income equality masquerades as egalitarian. Other economists can and do discuss causes of and solutions to inequality, including establishing the fact "the rich get richer" was a truism when gold standards were everywhere. Austrian economics doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of "social cost", rejects the possibility of making meaningful claims about some people needing a dollar more than others and wants to set a floor on how much of the future economy the 1% control by ensuring their 'sound money' is still good for that share of future economic growth even if they impede that growth by withdrawing it from circulation.

But yes, it's very good at scapegoating the Fed as the root of all evil as its oil baron funded adherents join often successful lobbying efforts against every single policy that might make working class people's lives less uncomfortable.

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

#816

Post by pembrook »

dang wrote: post #794
pembrook wrote: post #480

> It amazes me why most people do not grasp this. I think it is lack of education. Huh? Literally everybody grasps this. This is the most widely parroted mainstream narrative about the economy right now on the internet. Hell, you can't throw a rock at the Wall Street Journal (conservative) or the New York Times (liberal) without hitting a sentence that mentions wealth inequality brought on by fed policy. For further…

Personal attacks are not cool on HN. We ban accounts that post like that. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do it again. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26103730 .

Duly noted, I regret bringing OPs education into question. Looks like I got emotionally swept up in fancying myself as defending the “common man.” I would remove the personally addressed portions if I could.

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

#817

Post by sum_numpty »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #600
sum_numpty wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equality is a myth. There are good and shitty people across all races, genders, sexualities, etc. What we need to be focused on is equality of opportunity. Taxes are just not enough. We need far more actual health and education resources allocated to those systemically under-represented in social power. That needs to be represented in a transparent manner to all citizens. Then it's a matter of letting the chips fall…

Just FYI you said "equality of opportunity" and went on to describe "equality of outcome".

Yeah somewhat sloppy. Honestly that was mostly flamebait from me. Wondered if such a statement could provoke a conversation on those issues. Beliefs I hold but always trying to challenge them.

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

#818

Post by account42 »

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.

> You can buy a 70" flat panel display for $500 today.

For $500 + being subjected to ads.

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

#819

Post by pydry »

fiftyfifty wrote: post #325
pydry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's of little consolation having the price of your phone decline when the price of education, healthcare and a roof over your head have skyrocketed. Even if that were not the case, it's abundantly clear that geometrically increasing consolidated economic power is being translated into consolidated raw political power (which is zero sum). The events of the last few months and history in general have proved that this…

It's interesting that the 3 things you give as an example have sky rocketed in cost not because of the 1%, but mostly due to government interference in the free market. Government backed loans have driven up the cost of education and housing. Local governments limiting housing construction have further driven up the cost in many areas. Government created monopolies like the AMA have driven up the cost of healthcare.

It's not interesting at all.

When the government created undischargeable-in-bankruptcy loans for 17 year olds to get them into debt for life so they would need to be pliant, obedient workers for businesses owned by the 1%, on whose behalf did you think they were doing it?

The students'?

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

#820

Post by guerrilla »

chii wrote: post #790
guerrilla wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is fundamentally wrong with Bill Gates earning and having that much more than others is that he has, in reality, proportionally more power. That isn't democracy in the end.

> in reality, proportionally more power. That isn't democracy in the end. someone who is a very well versed orator and public speaker, can also have a disporportionate power, by convicing people of his point of view. But in a democracy, everyone still only have one vote, and bill gates' vote is just as valid as yours. Compared that to the old days, where if you weren't born nobility, you do not get a say in affairs t…

Just because it could be worse and can't be perfect doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be better.
Post reply on HN