Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's amazing to me about HN is comments like this don't get downvoted, but comments about how maybe we should tax the wealthy a little bit do.
[flagged]
Whatever, you & me are both helping to make it what it is.
America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
941–950 of 961 posts
Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
#942Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Church of capitalism might have convinced to otherwise. But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ...
> I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. There are workers who operate the machines and there are workers who makes sure the factory exists for other people to work at. > The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Value is generated when a capitalist arranges capital so that he can hire people. > But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up…
At the fundamental level I don’t agree with this position.
A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes)
Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
#943Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. There are workers who operate the machines and there are workers who makes sure the factory exists for other people to work at. > The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Value is generated when a capitalist arranges capital so that he can hire people. > But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up…
At the fundamental level I don’t agree with this position. A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes)
> A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes)
I’m aware that if you remove all the workers, value cannot be generated anymore. This includes the worker whose work is allocating capital. Hence all workers are entitled to the pay that they can negotiate with other market participants, including the capitalist who negotiates a rent (or other arrangement) for his capital.
However the level of productivity of workers without any sort of tools is very likely to be below survival.
Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
#944Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much, we just happen to be on a big (empty) island.
After having lived through the lockdown in Melbourne myself, I think it's pretty unfair to the people here to suggest that the reason the cases are so low is because it's just "a big empty island", and not the result of the fairly hard lockdown that the people here had to endure.
Probably a coincidence that overzealous governments are locking people down the world over and it's only working in AU/NZ then.
Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
#945Zero-sum thinking perceives situations as zero-sum games, where one person's gain would be another's loss. The term is derived from game theory. However, unlike the game theory concept, zero-sum thinking refers to a psychological construct—a person's subjective interpretation of a situation. Zero-sum thinking is captured by the saying "your gain is my loss" (or conversely, "your loss is my gain"). Rozycka-Tran et al.…
So what if it's not a zero-sum game? You're missing the point. Most people don't care if billionaires make more money. However the REAL problem is the fact that the bottom 90% are struggling to fulfill their basic needs, with prices of rent and water[1] skyrocketing. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/americas-water-cr...
Putting blame on a false reason is at worst a waste of time & resources and at best a distraction.
Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
#946Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the fundamental level I don’t agree with this position. A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes)
> A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes) I’m aware that if you remove all the workers, value cannot be generated anymore. This includes the worker whose work is allocating capital. Hence all workers are entitled to the pay that they can negotiate with other market participants,…
Straw man, and misapplication of my point.
Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you.
Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist. Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work. Crazy I know.
Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
#947Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes) I’m aware that if you remove all the workers, value cannot be generated anymore. This includes the worker whose work is allocating capital. Hence all workers are entitled to the pay that they can negotiate with other market participants,…
Straw man, and misapplication of my point. Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist. Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work. Crazy I know.
> Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you.
Why do you believe that capital was not allocated for 1000s of years? This seems absurd, and I’m not sure how to charitably interpret this. Do you think that humans were unthinking automatons until recently? When the Egyptians built the pyramids, that was capital allocation.
> Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist.
This is generally speaking, false. Value generation does indeed require capital allocation. Otherwise there would be no tools or raw materials with which to generate value.
> Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work.
Ownership is a social construct that determines who is entitled to use of a thing. Without that social arrangement, then people will just fight over stuff. This is why animals evolved territoriality.
> Crazy I know.
Then join us over here on the side of sanity where we do understand how ownership works.
Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
#948Earlier quoted context omitted.
Straw man, and misapplication of my point. Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist. Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work. Crazy I know.
> Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Why do you believe that capital was not allocated for 1000s of years? This seems absurd, and I’m not sure how to charitably interpret this. Do you think that humans were unthinking automatons until recently? When the Egyptians built the pyramids, that w…
Australian aboriginals. 60000 years. No capital, no ownership (no words to even express the concept).
Plenty of tools and productive work.
Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
#949Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Why do you believe that capital was not allocated for 1000s of years? This seems absurd, and I’m not sure how to charitably interpret this. Do you think that humans were unthinking automatons until recently? When the Egyptians built the pyramids, that w…
Australian aboriginals. 60000 years. No capital, no ownership (no words to even express the concept). Plenty of tools and productive work.
Tools are capital. Land is capital.
> No capital, no ownership (no words to even express the concept).
My understanding is that the Australian government is continuing to expropriate their land (capital). So it seems to be a basic fact that they did own it before, and that is no longer the case.
Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
#950Earlier quoted context omitted.
He has been consistently wrong for 15 years, if he was right, it was a half truth by accident. Let’s look harder at his theses since 2007 or so: 1. US Equity Markets Crash. Okay, that happened in 2008. But, did it he get the reason why? He claims it is all about Debt and easy money. That interest rates should be up and ultimately we should be tethered to hard currency. That’s a really, really simplistic and ahistoric…
You mean because his reasoning is Austrian and not Keynesian it is wrong even when the crash happens which he predicted would happen? That's convenient. Gold has also done pretty well hasn't it? You can list wrong predictions all day, but if the guy is occasionally right you need to give credit.
There's still no reason for anyone to carry around a broken watch and no reason to listen to wolf criers who are more wrong than not. Pete Schiff as an anachronistic goldbug is a curious oddity to point out every now and then for amusement. He isn't someone worth listening to though.