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

20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 444 posts

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#141

Post by seibelj »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #98
netcan wrote: post #52

In college, I studied Ronald Coase's famous 1920s papers. The major application ATT was infrastructure stuff. Coase's argument was that "given 0 transaction costs," it doesn't matter who owns what property or right. The market will achieve efficient solutions as firms sell each other radio spectrum or whatnot. Policy should focus on minimizing transaction costs and let the market organize itself. Circa 2005, I heard…

> In any case, the "wealth disparity" discussion is almost always badly anchored. The first thing to understand about wealth disparity is that it maps pretty much to wealth. More wealth, more wealth disparity... almost universally. Many or most people have no wealth, depending on your semantics of "wealth." Therefore, if the value/quantity of wealth rises, wealth disparity rises. I agree with you but it remains a pro…

A major difference now is the majority of those with vast wealth earned it themselves through creating new enterprises. The aristocrats of old received it through birth or politicking. The rich today are far more effective and organizationally superior considering it was those exact skills that made them their wealth.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#142

Post by Spooky23 »

jpadkins wrote: post #70
Spooky23 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure someone would shed a tear for you. Think of how productive thousands of people would be if they weren’t staring down at death or disability daily because some ambitious motherfucker decided to make a cheap commodity like insulin a monopolized product, essential for life at a usurious price.

What do you think about the Biden Admin rescinding the insulin pricing rules? https://www.policymed.com/2021/10/biden-administration-resci...

I think it’s a pragmatic, tactical approach that eases human suffering, but rewards the villain with billions of taxpayer and insurance ratepayer dollars.

The reality is that the GOP would vote against the sun coming up in the morning if Biden suggested it were a good idea. Such is politics.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#143

Post by chii »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #128
chii wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reality is nearer they'll buy an NFT of a hamburger and then ask for another $20m let's say for argument's sake, that they ended up doing this - what's the difference than the food buyers in this case? Both is generating economic activity. And if the $20m was spent on food, wouldn't those people also then ask for another $20m after having eaten their food? My point is, gov't handouts are better off being invested i…

Your point is still wrong, because "productivity investments" are more likely to destroy jobs - certainly stable, well-paid jobs - than to create them. In a very obvious and mundane way, how often do people find that when someone leaves a job they're suddenly doing their own work and the work of the person who left? But without a pay rise? That's a productivity increase. It is very much not a "generated job." Add aut…

> government seed funding of computing in the 50s, which created completely new kinds of business activity. But only after the initial research was paid for by the public

this is exactly my point - "food" (computing) wasn't available, and the gov't "handed out" lots of money to "the rich" (aka, seed funding) to perform this sort of research and development. The end result is that new "food" (computing) became available where none was before.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#144

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

What an amazing headline.

"The rich are taking most of the gains for themselves"

No, stock in certain valuable companies rose a lot when their inherent value did (especially in relative terms), and stockholders thus hold a lot more wealth on paper.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#145

Post by 271828182846 »

refurb wrote: post #88
romwell wrote: post #10

Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with. It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that. Go figure, give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. Give a billionaire $20M, s…

Low quality post unworthy of HN.

and your's is better, isn't it

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#147

Post by skywal_l »

littlestymaar wrote: post #99
netcan wrote: post #52

In college, I studied Ronald Coase's famous 1920s papers. The major application ATT was infrastructure stuff. Coase's argument was that "given 0 transaction costs," it doesn't matter who owns what property or right. The market will achieve efficient solutions as firms sell each other radio spectrum or whatnot. Policy should focus on minimizing transaction costs and let the market organize itself. Circa 2005, I heard…

> The first thing to understand about wealth disparity is that it maps pretty much to wealth. More wealth, more wealth disparity... almost universally. This is obviously wrong. Take India vs Switzerland as an example. Also, in the post-war era, the Western European countries saw a diminution of wealth disparity at the same time as a great wealth increase. Actually the history of the western world in the 20th century…

Absolutely. Piketty showed that wealth inequality peaked right before WWI and was very low in the 60/70s. The amount of wealth between these two periods does not even compare.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#148

Post by Spooky23 »

syshum wrote: post #67
Spooky23 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure someone would shed a tear for you. Think of how productive thousands of people would be if they weren’t staring down at death or disability daily because some ambitious motherfucker decided to make a cheap commodity like insulin a monopolized product, essential for life at a usurious price.

I find this example very ironic, given that the reason an " ambitious motherfucker " can take a cheap commodity like insulin and make it a monopolized product is directly a result of government regulations. The very same government you want to take everyone money and believe will spend it wisely

That’s a specious argument.

If the problem is that people are frequently running a red light, the root cause isn’t the fact that a traffic light exists.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#149

Post by JackFr »

romwell wrote: post #10

Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with. It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that. Go figure, give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. Give a billionaire $20M, s…

> as the billionaire holds on to whatever financial product they bought forever as long as it appreciates faster than inflation.

Another word for that is investment.

Where do you think that money goes? You don’t earn returns on money that isn’t doing anything.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#150

Post by FredPret »

Werewolf255 wrote: post #73
syshum wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I worked as a doctor for 20 years, invested most of my income in that 20 years in to dividend paying stocks, then at age 45 or so retire to live off my dividends that my hard work paid of, I did not earn any of that?

I mean, no? In this specific example, the doctor is buying instruments which derive their interest from exploiting the labor and capital of those in the offering company, and after 20 years, the doctor is just living off others work because he 'earned it'. Plus, of course, in this perfect market scenario, no crashes or corrections can ever occur.

So many issues with this.

If the doctor et al - the investing public - don’t own the dividend-paying companies, who will? If you say “a broader base of people” I agree. If you say “the state”, I’d urge you to read some history books.

Ownership is an economic concept that is fundamentally misunderstood. It’s a skill you can be good at, and a good owner has a massive positive impact on society. It’s not a golden ticket to sit on your ass and switch off your brain like some others imply.

When you own something, you have to look out for everything that can go wrong with your property and have strategies in place to deal with it. You have to consider every possible use of it and decide on the one that adds the most value. You have to consider the long-term flow of resources needed for various projects and invest either your own or borrow someone else’s. You have to hire good managers and then manage them.

Owning something is a LOT of work if you do it right because you own the entire outcome, no matter what it is or who’s fault it is.

Post reply on HN