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

Wealth Shown to Scale

mkorostoff.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#91

Post by pydry »

Folcon wrote: post #90
pydry wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've been describing them? I really dont think you have. You've been describing a hypothetical weed that doesnt manifest IRL. >doesn't mean that you can execute it. Coz you defined "execute it" in such a wildly unrealistic way that in no way resembles how any person actually or would want to "execute" that level of wealth. >I'm sort of confused why you don't see any issues with that definition of wealth Coz I'd neve…

You're making a lot of short points without actually describing any reasoning behind them. If you just want to disagree that's fine, but I was actually looking for a discussion? For example: >>I'm sort of confused why you don't see any issues with that definition of wealth >>the simple act of attempting to exercise that wealth suddenly means you have less of it? >Yes, that is kind of the point of spending. I don't un…

>It's slow because Bill Gates wants to spend the rest of his life spending his fortune. Your presupposition is seemingly that although he is doing this the wealth he is and will spend "isnt quite real" or "should be discounted" because he can't squeeze all that spending into one day.

>Is that correct? Please, indulge me by answering this question directly.

You did not answer the question.

If you aren't at all concerned with the central point of this discussion and simply wish to abstractly discuss the nature of liquidity and wealth then I will leave the discussion here. There are economics textbooks that explain the topic to the layperson better than I would.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#92

Post by sooheon »

LeonB wrote: post #69
sooheon wrote: post #19

The rich aren't the enemy, rent-seekers are. They may overlap, and Bezos may be both, but wealth and capital on their own are orthogonal to justice. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHKZRLcW4AA1aju?format=jpg&name=...

I’m surprised that people continue to share that graphic with a straight face. If “rent-seeking” contributes to people becoming wealthy then the two notions don’t remain orthogonal. The chances of finding more rent seeker among the wealthy is far higher than more rent seekers among the non-wealthy. Additionally the size of “problems” that a single low-wealth rent-seeker causes is not equivalent to the amount of “prob…

I agree with all of your points and still believe that rent seeking is the root cause to be addressed, not wealth in and of itself. Wealth is just stored labor. It is value neutral, and everyone has the right to the fruits of their own labor. It is only rent, unjustly collected from others' labor via force or monopoly that is illegitimate.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#93

Post by vishnugupta »

Folcon wrote: post #90
pydry wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've been describing them? I really dont think you have. You've been describing a hypothetical weed that doesnt manifest IRL. >doesn't mean that you can execute it. Coz you defined "execute it" in such a wildly unrealistic way that in no way resembles how any person actually or would want to "execute" that level of wealth. >I'm sort of confused why you don't see any issues with that definition of wealth Coz I'd neve…

You're making a lot of short points without actually describing any reasoning behind them. If you just want to disagree that's fine, but I was actually looking for a discussion? For example: >>I'm sort of confused why you don't see any issues with that definition of wealth >>the simple act of attempting to exercise that wealth suddenly means you have less of it? >Yes, that is kind of the point of spending. I don't un…

> there is a difference between an equity valued at X and cash of X value.

Indeed, based on my readings and thought exercises this is absolutely correct.

In case of equity it is the market i.e., the collective belief of participants in the market is what is backing the value. As we see once in a while market for specific stocks could vanish leaving nothing backing that value. Where as in case of cash it is backed by the US government. That is a big difference.

For a day-to-day retail equity trader you could assume there is close to 1-1 correspondence between equity and cash. But at scale that 1-1 mapping breaks down.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#94

Post by carnitine »

iratic0 wrote: post #7

Nice graphic, but also a bit misleading. Bezos would never be able to immediately realise that amount of assets in to useful cash. So saying no human deserves this amount of wealth is kind of already fulfilled? He may have 2 or 3 billion as cash maybe.

At this point I think there must be a propaganda campaign to convince people down this line of thinking. Bezos could realistically liquidate the majority of his wealth, though obviously not all at once. Look at how much Gates has liquidated.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#95

Post by Folcon »

pydry wrote: post #91
Folcon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a lot of short points without actually describing any reasoning behind them. If you just want to disagree that's fine, but I was actually looking for a discussion? For example: >>I'm sort of confused why you don't see any issues with that definition of wealth >>the simple act of attempting to exercise that wealth suddenly means you have less of it? >Yes, that is kind of the point of spending. I don't un…

>It's slow because Bill Gates wants to spend the rest of his life spending his fortune. Your presupposition is seemingly that although he is doing this the wealth he is and will spend "isnt quite real" or "should be discounted" because he can't squeeze all that spending into one day. >Is that correct? Please, indulge me by answering this question directly. You did not answer the question. If you aren't at all concern…

Sorry, you added the question after I'd read and responded to a previous version of your question, I'm currently answering it.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#96

Post by cloudfifty »

bb123 wrote: post #12

I disagree on the the thrust of the argument - that people (including comparatively wealthy individuals like doctors and lawyers) oppose changes to tackle wealth inequality because they don’t understand the gulf of wealth between them and the ultra rich. In my experience it has nothing to do with that - rather these people know that they will ultimately end up as the main target for any such law, not these billionair…

What this attitude says to me is that too many people have more solidarity with the ultra rich than their peers. Not to even mention those whose income is lower than their own. Hence, a tax on the ultra rich, is somehow very likely - in their mind - going to affect them as well. On the contrary however, a benefits cut, or perhaps a benefit grant, is just a waste of cash and will never benefit them somehow, even though things like paid vacation in Europe is universal.

I'm sorry but to me this attitude hasn't worked out all that well for the common man in the US (no vacation, parental leave, health care etc), but still you believe in the propaganda by default.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#97

Post by [deleted] »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #13
actually_a_dog wrote: post #2

Missing: median US Black household wealth, $24,100; median US Hispanic household wealth, $36,100. Numbers as of 2019. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disp...

Well, it looks like two people were uncomfortable enough with these numbers to do something about it, and it only took 27 minutes! Unfortunately, y’all chose “stick my head in the sand” over “remediate the situation.” Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? These numbers are recent and reliably sourced. Try doing something productive, like, at least engaging with the data rather than trying to make it so people d…

[deleted]

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#98

Post by _nicelaris_ »

A) Nice. Good for Bezos. B) He has nowhere near that much actual money at his disposal. Such arguments are embarrassingly ignorant of how wealth and economics works. If he liquidated all of his assets and actually cashed in all of his net worth, then sure, but his overall wealth is currently represented by hundreds of thousands of jobs, massive operations of server farms, brick and mortar warehouses, fleets of delivery trucks, etc. Anger and outrage (let's be honest, this is all just envy at the end of the day) over the wealth of Bezos nothing to do with caring about the plight of those who make less money and everything to do with ignorance, laziness and lack of any sense of personal responsibility for their own financial situation. C) Go ahead and push for increased regulation that targets the ultra wealthy and see just how much they profit from said laws at your expense. You do understand that the billionaire class is behind most of the pressure on regulators to tighten market restrictions, right? They work it to their own advantage in order to prevent competition and retain their own economic hegemony. You want more equitable economic conditions? Then abolish market regulations.

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#99

Post by sooheon »

esarbe wrote: post #38
sooheon wrote: post #19

The rich aren't the enemy, rent-seekers are. They may overlap, and Bezos may be both, but wealth and capital on their own are orthogonal to justice. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHKZRLcW4AA1aju?format=jpg&name=...

Rent-seeking might not be the only problem. Worker exploitation is also a serious issue on my list. How on earth can someone defend not paying a living salary for a full time job? Add to that that the legal framework (talking about the USA) is seriously skewed to favor employers and disadvantages workers and any attempts to unionize. This has to stop.

Great point, but worker exploitation (like so many other problems) flow out of perverse rentier structures. In fact this is one of the first principles discovered about how rent works, termed the "law of rent" by David Ricardo over 200 years ago. I.e. that the rent collected from productivity will always be such that the remaining wages are only exactly as good as the "margin of production", a.k.a. the next best alternative to engaging with the labor economy, subsistence living. This is why you can have exploding productivity and still subsistence standard of living for labor, where the entirety of the excess is captured by rentiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent

Re: Wealth Shown to Scale

#100

Post by bmn__ »

refurb wrote: post #63
esarbe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent-seeking might not be the only problem. Worker exploitation is also a serious issue on my list. How on earth can someone defend not paying a living salary for a full time job? Add to that that the legal framework (talking about the USA) is seriously skewed to favor employers and disadvantages workers and any attempts to unionize. This has to stop.

What is a "living salary"? If I'm a single mom with 3 kids, is the "living salary" the same as a single 20 year old who lives at home?

Short introduction to definitions in the field of applied economics, see OECD and WHO publications for details. A living salary is a colloquial phrase, more precisely we should talk about the net equivalised household income. Gender and marital status is irrelevant for the calculation.

Let us assume both household's single earner brings in 15382 €/a (EU-27/28 average net income for 2013). Household 1 with two juveniles and one child is 6688 €/a, poverty. Household 2 remains 15382 €/a.

Post reply on HN