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

101–110 of 136 posts

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

#101

Post by alienjr »

Animats wrote: post #67
Frondo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist ..." I would like those capitalists to show me the "property rights" molecule.

The concept of "property rights without responsibility" is a Roman invention. There are alternatives. US law takes property rights more seriously than most other countries, because the US never had to get rid of feudalism. Also, one of the few lawbooks available in the early days of the US was Blackstone, who was a property rights absolutist. In feudalism, land ownership implies the obligation to protect the inhabita…

It's not a "natural law", but pretty close to it. It's a social convention (behavioral equilibrium) that guarantees peace and cooperation. The greatest philosopher of property rights was David Hume and the best continuator of Hume is Anthony de Jasay: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2455/231884

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

#102

Post by danmaz74 »

srgseg wrote: post #69

I feel the serious point Oxfam are looking to make is let down by a definition of wealth that is very distorted. Their headline is based on a report by Credit Suisse [1] which defines net worth as: "the marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (principally housing and land) less debts." Consider two people who will earn exactly the same amount of money at every stage of their lives. But one is 1…

Any definition of wealth is "distorted", but you can still use them to measure trends. What is really worrying is how fast inequality is growing.

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

#103

Post by lifeisstillgood »

CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #47
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #40

"The existence of a billionaire is a clear indicator of one or more market failures" I have been banging this around my head for a while since PG's infamous essay. There are plenty of reasons to see wildly successful people as talented, special etc. But nowhere near enough to believe them to be superhuman. Nor as rare as might be expected. Becoming a billionaire (or member of top 1% or what have you) is not something…

I would take a close look at feedback loops from wealth. The very poor is to poor to change anything, while the very rich can change laws and dictate world wide sentiments. In the end the inequalities of power destroys any linear correlation between skill and income that might otherwise manifest. Traditionally we've been looking at the lower end of the power distribution to mitigate this (unions, minimum wage, micro…

I dont disagree - market distortions can be found anywhere. And ending them will both end billionaires and likely increase equality (less billionaires means more money to spread between everyone else)

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

#104

Post by TeMPOraL »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #27
chiaro wrote: post #11

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…

>One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. Probably because most capitalists don't believe this? >nor did the property rights regarding their shares. Debatable. Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist and that "shares" are simply an agreed upon way of dividing property rights over a complexity of assets and agreements (i.e. a business). >Taxing la…

> Probably because most capitalists don't believe this?

That's what they may say. But the primary job of salesmen and the advertising industry is to create markets where none existed before. I.e. convince people to buy stuff they otherwise wouldn't even think about.

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

#105

Post by mercer »

bsbechtel wrote: post #97
mercer wrote: post #90

So, I know this is a complicated issue that has been discussion with a lot of emotion and even anger. I find it very difficult to make any sense of it all, because it strikes me that in every discussion some crucial things are mixed up so much that the entire discussion strikes me as unproductive most of the time. In single back and forth's, we mix up: - the meaning of words - the specificity of the argument (say, ac…

It might be good to explore some of the books that are considered classics with regards to free market capitalism. Adam Smith's writings, along with Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, will give you a much more nuanced understanding of the philosophies behind the ideas of the 'right'. The Road to Serfdom is one I would suggest starting with. I think you will find some much more powerful arguments for right wing econ…

You know what, I'll actually do that. Would 'The Road to Serfdom' be accessible enough to someone who has a relatively broad general knowledge, but is mostly versed in psychology?

This might sound strange, but is there any chance you would be willing to check up on my resolve in about a month? Just a quick email would be enough. It's just that with everything else going on in my life currently, I'm likely to forget even if I set a reminder or task...

(and I understand if you don't feel like doing this of course)

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

#106

Post by bsbechtel »

mercer wrote: post #105
bsbechtel wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be good to explore some of the books that are considered classics with regards to free market capitalism. Adam Smith's writings, along with Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, will give you a much more nuanced understanding of the philosophies behind the ideas of the 'right'. The Road to Serfdom is one I would suggest starting with. I think you will find some much more powerful arguments for right wing econ…

You know what, I'll actually do that. Would 'The Road to Serfdom' be accessible enough to someone who has a relatively broad general knowledge, but is mostly versed in psychology? This might sound strange, but is there any chance you would be willing to check up on my resolve in about a month? Just a quick email would be enough. It's just that with everything else going on in my life currently, I'm likely to forget e…

I set a reminder on my phone for a month from now. I'll do my best to follow up. TRTS is grounded in political/economic philosophy, as it was written before economics had the analytical rigor it has today. Don't let that fool you into thinking it is out of date and incorrect. Many things in the field of economics and politics can't really be accurately measured (how do you really measure how much a 1% tax increase affects future innovation and entrepreneurship, if those innovations don't exist yet?) That being said, if you can handle dense psychology books, you might need to re-read a few paragraphs and sentences multiple times to get it, but you'll probably be fine.

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

#107

Post by vixen99 »

sitkack wrote: post #15
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They'll be touched by your concern.

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

#108

Post by vixen99 »

refurb wrote: post #28
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

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

What do they do with it then? The only way they could hold money and it not have a positive impact is if it's sitting in cash. If they invest it or hell, even put it in a savings account, the money is having a positive impact on the economy. If they buy a ridiculous $50M yacht? That money flows to the company that built it.

All of which may have something to do with rock solid fact that global capitalism is lifting people out of poverty at the fastest rate in human history.

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

#109

Post by srgseg »

danmaz74 wrote: post #102
srgseg wrote: post #69

I feel the serious point Oxfam are looking to make is let down by a definition of wealth that is very distorted. Their headline is based on a report by Credit Suisse [1] which defines net worth as: "the marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (principally housing and land) less debts." Consider two people who will earn exactly the same amount of money at every stage of their lives. But one is 1…

Any definition of wealth is "distorted", but you can still use them to measure trends. What is really worrying is how fast inequality is growing.

If governments made loans for university education available to a billion more people, that would dramatically increase their future earnings potential and quality of life. Yet this would be flagged as a "worrying increase in inequality" if you count their debt against them but don't count their newly increased earnings potential in their favor.

Similarly, increasing access to healthcare would extend people's working lives. This is a fantastic outcome. But this would increase the number of years that people would be able to save over, and so this again would be flagged as rising inequality because some people will have been able to save for longer. Instead of people retiring at 50 with far greater savings than 18 year olds, you'd have people retiring at 60 with even greater still savings than 18 year olds. Yet those 18 year olds will when they are 60 achieve the same "wealth", so those 18 year olds are not being "wronged" by this inequality.

The primary adjustment that needs to be made is simply to start counting earnings potential as an asset, instead of ignoring it and claiming as a result that people are worse off than they really are.

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

#110

Post by dmgd »

Frondo wrote: post #42
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. Probably because most capitalists don't believe this? >nor did the property rights regarding their shares. Debatable. Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist and that "shares" are simply an agreed upon way of dividing property rights over a complexity of assets and agreements (i.e. a business). >Taxing la…

"Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist ..." I would like those capitalists to show me the "property rights" molecule.

I would like you to show me the "sarcasm" molecule
Post reply on HN