Live data from Hacker News

The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

awealthofcommonsense.com

501–510 of 606 posts

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#501
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protip: if you ever want to downplay inequality, gloss over wealth inequality and focus on income inequality to the exclusion of all else. It's VERY effective.

income is what people consume, it's what we should measure when thinking about inequality.

Who needs somewhere to live or money in the bank?

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#502
post #117

The only thing that should matter is that the poorest segment of society becomes richer over time. And it has (in inflation-adjusted terms, lower income Americans have become richer over many decades).

No one cares they can afford a filet mignon once a month if their boss is spending more money on lunch than they make in an entire year

Why would I care what my boss eats?

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Belarus had 500.000 people show up. But they got beat down. Hong Kong had millions of people show up. But it just led to massive crackdowns. Numbers mean nothing when the guys who own the guns are not on your side.

> Numbers mean nothing when the guys who own the guns are not on your side. Not saying it will turn out differently, but there are more guns circulating in the US than there are people. Nearly everyone has or can easily get access to a gun. US culture is also quite a bit different, celebrating violence, don't tread on me, etc... Again, it might not make a difference, but I'm not sure those other situations are compar…

Enlisted swear to defend the constitution first, in order of precedence. This is the way it is commonly understood.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#504
post #31

I think about this from time to time and I suppose everything is cyclical in the end. Most of us would have been some peasant in the feudal age and when it gets really bad it always ends in a revolution of some sort. It's just on a global scale and timeframe now. As more of the population feels the effects of inequality they won't appeased by just fancy toys and shiny things, they will want change by force. My only s…

The population might not be happy, but they don't have the means to change it. Revolutions don't happen when people are mad, they happen when the ones who can afford armies and equipment sense the possibility of coming out on top. 250 years ago George Washington could have financed the entire Revolutionary War out of his own pocket and he still would have retained two thirds of his wealth. Instead he put the losses o…

> 250 years ago George Washington could have financed the entire Revolutionary War

That was a rebellion, not a revolution. The colonial elite broke away from the mother country. They sculpted the eventual legal and political structure to protect their power and privilege without having to pay taxes.

If you're looking for a revolution, better look at the French Revolution or the October Revolution.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population might not be happy, but they don't have the means to change it. Revolutions don't happen when people are mad, they happen when the ones who can afford armies and equipment sense the possibility of coming out on top. 250 years ago George Washington could have financed the entire Revolutionary War out of his own pocket and he still would have retained two thirds of his wealth. Instead he put the losses o…

> George Washington could have financed the entire Revolutionary War out of his own pocket and he still would have retained two thirds of his wealth Is that true ? As far as I am aware, the money the French Government alone loaned to the US during the revolutionary war (at least two million dollars[0]) far exceeded the value of Washington personal wealth (estimated at $780,000 in 1799 [1], so at the time of his death…

It goes far beyond that: France sent troops and France and Spain sent their navies to protect the East Coast and fought with the British navy to prevent them from landing forces. They also prepared an invasion to invade the British isles, which tied what forces Britain had remaining to the British isles. That is how the small rebel contingents were able to win against the scarce British presence. Even that required Lafayette to come up from the south with his French contingent and do a pincer move.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Numbers mean nothing when the guys who own the guns are not on your side. Not saying it will turn out differently, but there are more guns circulating in the US than there are people. Nearly everyone has or can easily get access to a gun. US culture is also quite a bit different, celebrating violence, don't tread on me, etc... Again, it might not make a difference, but I'm not sure those other situations are compar…

If it actually does come to a new civil war, my money is still on whoever owns most of the military. Small arms are nice and well, but they don't help you a lot when the other guy has got APCs and tanks.

It's always the people who have never fought in a war that say things like this.

APCs take fuel, require men to run, and need tires or tracks. For $10 worth of chemicals or a little bit of camouflage and some earth work you can make the APC irrelevant very quickly.

Happened in Iraq all the time.

The US military and its members have spent almost 25 years fighting through insurgencies.

There are millions of combat vets.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revolutions can happen if enough people show up. Massive amounts of people are difficult to deal with. Smaller groups you can outright kill in daylight, but better to get to them first to torture and kill them out of sight. Once you need to kill 500.000 who are protesting and if violence to quell the hoards wakes up more people who want to see the regime fail.

The people of Belarus put this to test not that long ago. Massive numbers of people came out, factories went on strike, even people from the military and police spoke out against the regime. Turned out that in this day and age when the governments have unprecedented powers of surveillance and the ability to cut anyone from the respective financial system, a revolution is a really hard thing to pull off. If the Britis…

> The people of Belarus put this to test not that long ago. Massive numbers of people came out, factories went on strike, even people from the military and police spoke out against the regime.

Did they, though... The Western media depicts all color revolutions as such movements, complete with 'the military speaking out'. They did the same in Venezuela and other places. The 'military guys speaking out' turned out to be Colombian mercenaries who put on the wrong Venezuelan army uniform and whatnot.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#508
post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

income is what people consume, it's what we should measure when thinking about inequality.

Who needs somewhere to live or money in the bank?

I dont think anyone would care if some people just had huge piles of money in the bank. Its what they do with the money that causes problems. That's income.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#509

I was very surprised by the holiday budget. Less than 2500$ for 80% of the population? Does that mean that no one from these 80% stays in a Hotel or AirBnB for longer than a week with their family? No one travels overseas, or if so, only every 5 years or so? 2000$ is what you can easily spend on plane tickets for a family of 4.

Crazy that you literally have no clue whatsoever how 80% of your country lives and has lived for the all your life.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys are so obsessed with inequality because you're always looking in the other guy's cup. I don't care about inequality at all - only absolute living standards. The US has been an unequal place all its history and it's a tremendous country to live in. Here's a recipe for happiness: stop comparing yourself to others and stop trying to keep up with the Joneses. It's old advice, but it's clearly been forgotten.

> The US has been an unequal place all its history and it's a tremendous country to live in. Have you.. lived in other countries? I came here from southeast Asia and yes, my BigTech salary affords me a comfortable life, but I simply don't understand why the bottom 90% aren't up in arms over here.

Haha, have you? I've been employed in 4 countries across 3 continents.
Post reply on HN