20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’ • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by coredog64 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:39 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #7

codegrappler wrote: post #2

I guess I’m not surprised that a bunch of folks who have made a career out of advising politicians on income inequality….discovered income inequality in their study. The two questions in my mind are: 1. Should we trust the government to spend the money more wisely than the folks who earned it? Or said another way, how do you combat the almost inevitable corruption you see with large government spending? 2. What will…

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.

At best this is a misunderstanding of the situation with insulin. Insulin is cheap. Like $25/vial cheap without insurance or even a prescription at Walmart. However, as any diabetic (or anyone who has a loved one who is diabetic) will tell you, cheap insulin sucks.

And so capitalist pharmaceutical companies came in, invested in R&D, and created new formulations of insulin that work better. And they're charging more to recover their investment. And when it goes off patent (and if the ass-covering shitheads at the FDA don't fuck it up), those new formulations will eventually be the same $25 at Walmart.

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

#192

Post by Enginerrrd » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #69

chii wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. if there wasn't enough food in the first place, then the $20m just got inflated. This 20m will not go towards investment in higher food productivity when given to individuals like that. Give this 20m to "the rich", they will invest it in food creation machinery. At least there would be more food produced…

No. That is exactly the kind of argument that was debunked. The rich, when given money, do not take the money and create for the poor. In everything I’ve read about direct giving, inflation is so insignificant, it isn’t even concern that’s addressed.

>In everything I’ve read about direct giving, inflation is so insignificant, it isn’t even concern that’s addressed.

I'm not necessarily against you here, but I'm curious: How does your sentiment square with the fact that a significant amount of direct giving just occurred, and we seem to now have significant demand-pull inflation to the point the ports are all backed up and the fed admits to 6% inflation which we know is understated. It would seem that doesn't reconcile, especially since post-2008 loose fiscal policy and low interest rates did NOT result in significant inflation as a comparison.

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

#193

Post by globular-toast » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

I thought trickle-down economics worked because I have seen how much better things have become in my lifetime. The cheapest food available today is so much higher quality than the cheapest available in the 90s. A bog standard car today comes with features that would have been considered luxury in the 90s. But these are all consumables.

The difference between income and wealth has only become clear to me recently. I am a top 10% earner in the UK, according to the statistics. But it made no sense to me because I can only barely afford to buy a house (now in my mid-30s) and the amount that others seem to spend on cars etc. is truly baffling to me. So I look up the other statistic. Well it turns out I'm in the bottom 30% when it comes to wealth.

Having wealth means someone could afford my lifestyle on a fraction of the income. There are millions of people who are trapped in a cycle of renting and borrowing who aren't building up any wealth at all. Meanwhile, people who started off with wealth in the first place find it easier and easier to keep building.

I'm probably not the only person who makes this mistake between income and wealth. Income can give you a nice lifestyle today. But the moment you stop working, you're out on the street. Wealth is what really matters.

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

#194

Post by JKCalhoun » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #144

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.

How much did the wealth of the minimum wage workers increase (on paper or otherwise)?

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

#195

Post by romwell » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

xondono wrote: post #166

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…

> give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. That’s not a return, the economy doesn’t work that way.

You seem to be confusing the concept of money going into and out of the economy with "return on investment".

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

#196

Post by TheRealDunkirk » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #116

bottled_poe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I want to agree with you, you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance.

While I want to agree with you , it so happens that your comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance. The substance of my comment is a simple model that explains why trickle-down doesn't work. If it helps, I'll add some references to support my argument: [1] TFA Thank you for the effort you put into providing your feedback.

“Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.”

Seriously, though, I wish HN would go full Usenet, so we could track people we like.

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

#197

Post by coredog64 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #132

nrdvana wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of how dead they would be if the insulin didn't exist. The part of the topic of insulin relevant to a discussion of trickle down economics is whether the insulin could have been researched and invented without letting people become wealthy profiting off of it. The monopoly on insulin that happened recently is one of the evil tendencies of capitalism that needs curtailed with laws, but unrelated to supply-side e…

I think insulin is yet another great example of why trickle down theories are bunk. Our economic policy for decades has been mostly centered around pumping capital into markets to prop them up or grow them. The problem is there’s too much money pursuing too little novel work. Ironically, making billions of “surplus” dollars available to big companies drives lots of little command economies, not healthy markets. It ma…

As I noted upthread, the expensive insulin is a new and improved product that was generated via R&D.

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

#198

Post by hairofadog » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

coredog64 wrote: post #191

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.

At best this is a misunderstanding of the situation with insulin. Insulin is cheap. Like $25/vial cheap without insurance or even a prescription at Walmart. However, as any diabetic (or anyone who has a loved one who is diabetic) will tell you, cheap insulin sucks. And so capitalist pharmaceutical companies came in, invested in R&D, and created new formulations of insulin that work better. And they're charging more t…

Asking out of genuine curiosity: how does cheap insulin suck?

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

#199

Post by ImprobableTruth » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #168

JackFr wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Where do you think that money goes? You don’t earn returns on money that isn’t doing anything. Yes you do? That’s what assets are.

... do you not know what risk is?

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

#200

Post by bottled_poe » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

pegasus wrote: post #122

bottled_poe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should I quote the parts in question? They seem obvious to me, as it’s every sentence.

Should he/she beg you to do so? They've already asked you once. And no, it's not obvious to me what your counterargument is.

Fine..

> 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).

Clearly hyperbole. Where’s the evidence for this broad claim?

> It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with.

Is this not “free market economics” ? Seems there’s a non-mythical basis there.. I could be wrong though if that’s a fictional concept? Would love to be enlightened.

> It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that.

This is opinion/conjecture.

> 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.

Appeal to probability, evidence?

> Give a billionaire $20M, see the money go into the fintech machine and pour out into offshore accounts, as the billionaire holds on to whatever financial product they bought forever as long as it appreciates faster than inflation.

Again, speak to probability, evidence?

> Oh, and they'll spend $200 on a fancy dinner.

Is that illegal? What’s the problem here?

> Cue Pikachu face when the economy doesn't improve.

Must I comment on this one?