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

Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

#11

Post by einpoklum »

whatshisface wrote: post #4

This article is painting mobility as a bad thing, but it also has a good side. China's capital controls are a big part of how it oppresses people: if they could just leave, China would have no ability to make itself into a productive dystopia. The ideal situation would be if countries had to compete for everyone's presence, but as it stands limitations on mobility mean that only the very powerful can leap over the bo…

A billion people can't "just leave". Even 10 million people can't "just leave" - look at Syria for example.

Re: Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

#13

Post by einpoklum »

sprafa wrote: post #8
aritmo wrote: post #2

It is ironic that Britain is already close to a tax-heaven than they admit.

The Channel Islands, Gibraltar and the Isle Of Man I believe are constantly being used for the purpose of tax evasion, money laundering etc... that’s what frightens me about Brexit - I think the hard Brexiteers actually want to make this easier, not harder. I.e. I met a software guy from Sachs who told me about what he did there. Essentially he built automated software to flag “suspicious transactions”. So ie if 200…

So a positive thing about Brexit would be that it makes it easier to declare war on the Faroe islands... Only need to fend off the British not all Europeans.

Re: Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

#14

Post by throw_away_zyx »

whatshisface wrote: post #4

This article is painting mobility as a bad thing, but it also has a good side. China's capital controls are a big part of how it oppresses people: if they could just leave, China would have no ability to make itself into a productive dystopia. The ideal situation would be if countries had to compete for everyone's presence, but as it stands limitations on mobility mean that only the very powerful can leap over the bo…

You're conflating physical and wealth mobility.

This is purely about wealth mobility for people with >$50m net worth.

People who got it through corruption at best and genocide at worst (literal genocide in a case I know in NY). The average Chinese or Russian citizen will never have the chance to move their money abroad because they have none, they will never have the chance to move themselves because legal immigration is expensive.

Re: Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

#15

Post by NeedMoreTea »

whatshisface wrote: post #4

This article is painting mobility as a bad thing, but it also has a good side. China's capital controls are a big part of how it oppresses people: if they could just leave, China would have no ability to make itself into a productive dystopia. The ideal situation would be if countries had to compete for everyone's presence, but as it stands limitations on mobility mean that only the very powerful can leap over the bo…

You seem to be talking of closed borders, not capital restrictions.

Britain and some other Western nations had capital controls until around the 1980s, without using them to oppress people. The millions who fled revolutionary China, without their capital, seeded Hong Kong and Taiwan with the huge population growth that made them what they are today.

Re: Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

#16

Post by mytailorisrich »

einhverfr wrote: post #5
alfromspace wrote: post #3

Imagine if instead of constantly building horrific low-income housing projects to (fruitlessly) retroactively "solve" the problem of middle and lower-class people being unable to afford housing in major metropolitan areas, we didn't poison the market in the first place by treating housing as foreign investment vehicles.

Yeah. I am in favor of a high tax on absentee ownership of real estate. Deduct the property where you live and where you work. Everything else gets taxed heavily.

But then either you can afford to buy your home or you have to live on the street...

Re: Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

#17

Post by sprafa »

Moneyland is a good book on this topic. Rich people (top 1%) don’t live or earn money “anywhere” anymore. There’s so much ease to global movement of capital they just move it around so they pay - no taxes - have no accounts with their name on it - launder all their money legally (if need be) - buy up property and invest without any interest in any country in particular.

It’s a depressing read.

Re: Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

#18

Post by einpoklum »

alfromspace wrote: post #3

Imagine if instead of constantly building horrific low-income housing projects to (fruitlessly) retroactively "solve" the problem of middle and lower-class people being unable to afford housing in major metropolitan areas, we didn't poison the market in the first place by treating housing as foreign investment vehicles.

The key word in your comment is "we". "we" don't do that - the government does. And as you yourself indicate - they don't do so in the public interest, they do so in the investors' interest.

Also - they shouldn't be a _domestic_ investment vehicle either.

Re: Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

#19

Post by sprafa »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #16
einhverfr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I am in favor of a high tax on absentee ownership of real estate. Deduct the property where you live and where you work. Everything else gets taxed heavily.

But then either you can afford to buy your home or you have to live on the street...

Absentee ownership is not equal to renting it out.

Re: Review of Moneyland by Oliver Bullough (2018)

#20

Post by heymijo »

whatshisface wrote: post #10
ClutchBand wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mobility is great but when on .001% of the entire global population gets to do it, and they get to do it much easier than anyone else would have (sometime skirting laws and requirements that normal people would). The rich and elite get special treatment, when they should not. It leads to more unfair conditions.

The question should be, how can we give the average person the freedoms that the elites have, not how can we enslave the Chinese elites in the way we've enslaved the average Chinese person.

Since the freedom in question is economic mobility, it's kind of a moot point for the huge proportion of the U.S. population with limited incomes and little to no wealth to move around.
Post reply on HN