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’

#261

Post by brabel » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

mrjangles wrote: post #93

God this article is bad on so many levels I don't know where to start. First, income inequality doesn't measure income mobility. Places like the US that have a huge number of unskilled illegal and legal immigrants constantly entering at the bottom level will always have high income inequality. The question is, what happens to each individual over the course of their lives? 83% of Americans will earn more than their p…

> The poorest person alive in a first world country today lives better than the richest 100 years ago.

You seem like an intelligent person, but then you go and spit some incredibly stupid sentence like that. Do you think the king of England 100 years ago lived worse than any of the thousands of homeless people camping on the streets of your country?

In fact, in relative terms, some of the wealthiest people on the planet lived in the golden age of aristocracy a hundred+ years ago.

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

#262

Post by romwell » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

xondono wrote: post #255

paulryanrogers wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It enriches food producers, distributors, and servers. Assuming those functions aren't already consolidated into a megacorp I'd say it has been more beneficial than pushing up numbers in some billionaires account.

And it impoverishes those who you took those 20M$. You can’t assess real impact without taking that into account.

A billionaire wont be "impoverished" by that.

I'll play my tiniest violin to their loss.

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

#263

Post by goohle » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

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…

I assume, you are talking about Venezuela or Zimbabwe dollars. Right?

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

#264

Post by socialdemocrat » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

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.

That is a stark claim with little empirical evidence. If you look at the world, you will find that Europe, one of the most affluent parts of the world has the lowest wealth inequality. While wealth inequality is very high in Africa, one of the poorer regions of the world.

Wealth inequality is far more likely to be the outcome of policies. Europe has been dominated more by various social democratic parties which have actively worked to reduce inequality. While areas such as North American with high levels of inequality has been dominated by parties pushing neoliberal economic policies.

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

#265

Post by romwell » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

bottled_poe wrote: post #200

pegasus wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> 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?

Dare I say.... in the fucking article?[1]

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29483131

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

#266

Post by hiptobecubic » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #141

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No? There are more wealthy people today who earned it without being bootstrapped by an insanely good starting position than ever before, but to suggest that it's the _majority_ is to ignore everything people have been complaining about in the streets for the last two years. A huge predictor, if not the single biggest predictor, of wealth is still just whether or not your parents are wealthy, especially at the top. E.g. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/. Even the wealth-x report that I assume you are thinking of points to people like besoz and buffet and zuck, all of whom argue a very clear "wow I got super lucky to be born when and where I did and to whom," message. Buffet literally calls it "winning the ovarian lottery."

Do some people overcome their initial bad luck and generate wealth for themselves? Of course there are some. But it is not "the majority of those with vast wealth." That's head-in-sand silicon valley tech utopia wankery.

I thought the movie Knives Out did a great job of parodying this "Rich people are ENTREPRENEURS that EARNED IT!" idea.

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

#267

Post by cycomanic » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #89

iso1631 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Give this 20m to "the rich", they will invest it in food creation machinery. At least there would be more food produced after the investment. That's the falacy. Reality is nearer they'll buy an NFT of a hamburger and then ask for another $20m

> 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…

? But the money for the poor to spend on food, is then paid to the people producing food, which have a direct interest in productivity investments in food production. While giving it to the billionaire would go into productivity investments of how to make a superyacht more cheaply, which is arguably less desirable from a societal perspective. Moreover, the argument ignores the fact that the richer people are the less price sensitive they become, in fact many rich people desire rare items that are expensive (and thus exclusive) by their very nature. For example how does investing in a villa that stays empty or a painting that is locked in some vault an investment in productivity?

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

#268

Post by 1234letshaveatw » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #201

xondono wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't ever heard trickle down proponents suggest we give the money to the working class. Because that would require taking from some people and giving to others through government, which is a very inefficient way to do it.

>Because that would require taking from some people and giving to others through government, which is a very inefficient way to do it. I mean where do you think defense contractor profits come from? How about medical and Pharma? Medicare is the largest single payor in the US and they deal exclusively with the elderly who require more prescriptions and medical care. Many large industry's largest client is the federal,…

>I mean where do you think defense contractor profits come from? How about medical and Pharma?

Inefficiency

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

#269

Post by goohle » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:16 PM UTC

ChrisLomont wrote: post #235

romwell wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Where do you think that money goes? Offshore. I think that money goes offshore. I even said it in the previous sentence, which you didn't quote. >Another word for that is investment. Well let's entertain the fantasy that the money doesn't flow away into offshore accounts for a second. So you're saying that investing is good? Then instead of giving money to rich people (e.g. by tax cuts), the government should do wha…

>Offshore. First, what tiny fraction of US money goes offshore versus for US investment? Ridiculously tiny. The total value of US investments dwarfs any offshore boogeyman. And, offshore isn't a dead end. It invests where it's worthwhile, which, again, is incredibly US based - look at our bond rates and market caps. >that investing is good What allows new companies, large and small, to form and employ? What allows sm…

Offshore companies are very popular in countries with unstable economy, like Russia, because oligarchs can confiscate your money at any time, so people in Russia are fighting with offshores with help of oligarchs. This is the real problem for them.

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

#270

Post by Frost1x » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 2:16 PM UTC

mrjangles wrote: post #93

God this article is bad on so many levels I don't know where to start. First, income inequality doesn't measure income mobility. Places like the US that have a huge number of unskilled illegal and legal immigrants constantly entering at the bottom level will always have high income inequality. The question is, what happens to each individual over the course of their lives? 83% of Americans will earn more than their p…

>The poorest person alive in a first world country today lives better than the richest 100 years ago.

What? Not even remotely close. John D Rockefeller was shrouded in wealth about 100 years ago. If you think the poorest, homeless person now stuck on the streets lives better than Rockefeller did, you're confused.

Do not conflate general human progress of what's available with more knowledge, science, and basic technology with what a time period normalized standard of living looks like. You can't attribute economics directly with progress (it is a factor but not the only factor), otherwise you could very easily make a valid argument for an authoritarian government and economy like you see in China. China is arguably just as technologically advanced as the US.

Now your middle income American might be considered as living better than Rockefeller depending on how you define quality of life. They have all the essentials they need to survive and access to more progress than Rockefeller did during his time period. They also have significantly less free time and less resources to explore the current space of possibilities whereas in the early 1900s, someone like Rockefeller had access to anything they wanted to do during that time period.