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’

#241

Post by dsizzle » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

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…

This happened in post-war US too

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/11/384988128/the-...)

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/in-the-balance/2017/...

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

#242

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #232

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is talked about by its opponents. No one on the right uses the phrase except in response. Try and find some examples

Isn't it great how, once the idiocy of trickle-down has become widely known, one can continue pushing the same ideas by merely calling it something else ? Such a neat trick! We are not talking about which phrase the Right uses today. The idea of trickle-down is what our current taxes are based on. There's no need to call it anything; obstructionism suffices

I am not American, but I assume you are.

Your taxes are tremendously progressive. In most other developed countries they're much less progressive.

Your tax and transfer system when combined is much kinder to the poor / harsher on the rich than basically any comparable country.

https://mobile.twitter.com/amorygethin/status/14591599783428...

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

#243

Post by Semaphor » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

jt2190 wrote: post #204

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…

Typo: He was pissed [off]. (I don’t usually comment on typos but this one took more than a second for my brain to decipher.)

"Pissed" meaning "pissed off" is American English, in BE "pissed" without "off" is "drunk"

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

#244

Post by throwaway0a5e » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #165

skywal_l wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could the low inequality be a cause for rapid wealth expansion?

I think the wealth increase is more easily explained by rebuilding everything we just finished blowing up, exploiting all the technological gains we made while getting better at blowing things up and using the disruption/reset as a means to achieve greater local economic maximums (e.g. historical rent seekers kicked out and things are free to become more efficient and mutually beneficial in the time it takes new ones to establish).

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

#245

Post by sharemywin » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #195

xondono wrote: post #166

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. 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".

It can work that way if:

1. there's enough market competition. monopoly power and rent seeking is low.

2. the stimulus is slowly introduced to give time for the market to react.

3. the mostly state regulations but also federal regulations are small enough to all new business to form. and those small businesses have access to capital.

4. all of the above are reasoned and tweaked by rational adults with a background in statistics, science and engineering instead of idiots with slogans.

Obviously that's a fantasy land. so here we are.

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

#246

Post by pydry » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

FredPret wrote: post #205

pydry wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not a golden ticket to sit on your ass and switch off your brain Buy $5 mil in S&P and that's exactly what you can do. Comfortably. The fact that you can mix work with wealth and earn a higher return is proof of little more than you can mix work with wealth. If you have wealth that is.

If an investment works well and is well known (S&P), it’ll only work for so long. The PE ratio’s in the 500 S&P co’s have been heading ever upward ( https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe ) indicating some sort of self-reinforcing effect.

70 years?

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

#247

Post by daniel-cussen » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

Trickle-down is literal. The wealth trickles down, just like it says. The common conception is the definition of "trickle-down" is "flow down" like the wealth flows in a cycle like the rain into the snow, the snowmelt in the river, and the river into the ocean. That's flow. But we are talking about "trickle", like a faucet trickling, meaning it can be shut off easily, or you need a fixer to fix it, or it merely causes a bit of mold and warps the parquet. Trickle.

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

#248

Post by Frost1x » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

GuB-42 wrote: post #211

I don't know what the original "trickle down" theory is but if it is all about money, then both the theory and its rebuttal are just circular reasoning. The way I understand the "trickle down" idea is that the global economy is not a zero-sum game and when rich people build something, the poor indirectly take advantage of it, even if the wealth repartition curve doesn't change. For example, a rich person may use his…

>I don't know what the original "trickle down" theory is but if it is all about money, then both the theory and its rebuttal are just circular reasoning.

It's more about giving preferential treatment, power, or advantage to the wealthy because they are considered the value creators and by giving them bigger breaks, advantages, or ability to make guidance decisions, they will move things in directions that benefit everyone.

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

#249

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

leto_ii wrote: post #177

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…

> More wealth, more wealth disparity... almost universally. How so? Why would you assume that the distribution of wealth is correlated to the total stock? In reality this actually doesn't have to be the case at all. Aside from direct means of wealth redistribution, the are ways of setting up an economic system such that wealth inequality is reduced. > Many or most people have no wealth, depending on your semantics of…

[deleted]

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

#250

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

skywal_l wrote: post #147

littlestymaar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

We have to thank socialism and communism for reducing wealth i equality in western Europe and in the US. But no, make no mistake, NOT because they are good, but because they're so disastrously bad, as was demonstrated by the USSR, that western elites did a lot to improve the working conditions of their workers, so they would put aside the comminust manifesto and would start caring about their nice car and a cosy house.