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

Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

oxfam.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 136 posts

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#11

Post by chiaro »

This sure seems to be HN's flavor of the month (and possibly for good reason). One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. LLC's and Delaware C-Corps didn't materialise out of the aether, nor did the property rights regarding their shares. I dislike the concept of "deserving" at the best of times, but under this light, those that are the most successful reap their rewards largely in relation to how this system is established. Taxing large profits is no more "unnatural" than protecting the right to these profits in the first place.

That said, with regards to the article, appealing to businesses as moral actors is only so effective. A business acting unethically but legally is most rectifiably a problem with the law, rather than the business.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#12

Post by bobby_9x »

What about actors? The top 1% of actors make more than the rest of the actors combined. Is this fair? Should we tell Tom Cruise that he needs to take 80% of his paycheck for the next Mission Impossible movie and redistribute it to the actors that are not well-known and aren't making as much?

How about something more relevant, like startups: Should it be fair that only 1% of startups make more than any of the other startups combined? Unicorns like Uber and Airbnb should take their profits and spread them around to startups that failed!

Yes, there is inequality, but I don't necessarily a bad thing. It's the natural form of most free marketplaces and systems.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#13

Post by [deleted] »

bobby_9x wrote: post #12

What about actors? The top 1% of actors make more than the rest of the actors combined. Is this fair? Should we tell Tom Cruise that he needs to take 80% of his paycheck for the next Mission Impossible movie and redistribute it to the actors that are not well-known and aren't making as much? How about something more relevant, like startups: Should it be fair that only 1% of startups make more than any of the other st…

[deleted]

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#14

Post by fsloth »

bobby_9x wrote: post #12

What about actors? The top 1% of actors make more than the rest of the actors combined. Is this fair? Should we tell Tom Cruise that he needs to take 80% of his paycheck for the next Mission Impossible movie and redistribute it to the actors that are not well-known and aren't making as much? How about something more relevant, like startups: Should it be fair that only 1% of startups make more than any of the other st…

Inequality happens automatically if there is no control. I.e. someone will have way more than others, and not because they created value and are just capturing portions of it. Exceptional value generating individuals are not the norm, they are the exception.

Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#15

Post by sitkack »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10
monochromatic wrote: post #7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&feature=youtu.be... Rising inequality on its own is not a problem.

It is a problem if only because of the huge power differential it creates and the segregation it leads to. It doesn't result in healthy societies.

The inequality is also bad for the rich since they end up getting eaten.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#16

Post by ChuckMcM »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

Massive income inequality hurts economic growth. Why? The rich don't spend (much of) their money, they hoard it.

You would have to define "hoard" here. But there is a more interesting question which is that when Bill Gates is worth 54 billion a lot of that is stock in Microsoft, not fungible cash.

When you have a millionaire who is "rich" because they own their house (no mortgage) and the house is worth more than a million dollars, they might still be living paycheck to paycheck. The difference being they could leverage their house if they needed money on short notice.

That said, it would be interesting to see what shooting down rent-seeking taxes would do here. If for example you allowed copyrights to expire in a reasonable time, then you could have people put on a play and keep the profits. Something they can't do today.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#17

Post by ximeng »

ekianjo wrote: post #3

Yet poverty as a whole is decreasing according to numerous measures. Plus their report contradicts the world bank observations: http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Glob... Which is not surprising since Oxfam has a clear political agenda. EDIT: world bank poverty report, clearly showing the decreasing poverty rates globally: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/G...

Not quite sure the point of your comment. This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing? The report you link to agrees with what they say is a problem (e.g. "In high-income countries, the rising concern about shared prosperity is a reaction to income inequality that has reached levels unprecedented in the post-war period.") There is no contradiction between the top 1% getting richer and more global equality within the remaining 99%.

Oxfam no doubt have a political agenda, we could probably debate how clear it is and what exactly it is, but their political agenda doesn't particularly influence whether this article is correct, nor do your links seem to contradict it.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#18

Post by rboyd »

Strange to see a Rothschild speak out against inequality.

(FTA) Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild [...] said: “Oxfam’s report is just the latest evidence that inequality has reached shocking extremes, and continues to grow. It is time for the global leaders of modern capitalism, in addition to our politicians, to work to change the system to make it more inclusive, more equitable and more sustainable."

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#19

Post by jqm »

2.7 million puts one in the richest 1%? Unexpected, but I guess it makes sense. There are still a lot of very poor in the world.

I started to think "injustice" when I saw the article, but 2.7 million will barely buy a nice house in some parts of the US. I suppose in some ways wealth is still relative.

I guess I'm more curious about what percentage of world assets the .001% control.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#20

Post by ekianjo »

ximeng wrote: post #17
ekianjo wrote: post #3

Yet poverty as a whole is decreasing according to numerous measures. Plus their report contradicts the world bank observations: http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Glob... Which is not surprising since Oxfam has a clear political agenda. EDIT: world bank poverty report, clearly showing the decreasing poverty rates globally: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/G...

Not quite sure the point of your comment. This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing? The report you link to agrees with what they say is a problem (e.g. "In high-income countries, the rising concern about shared prosperity is a reaction to income inequality that has reached levels unprecedented in the post-war period.") There is no contradiction between the top 1% getting richer and mor…

> This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing?

They are saying the inequalities are growing, whereas the world bank report says the inequalities in income are shrinking progressively. That's a very different view.

Post reply on HN