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

Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#101

Post by Retra »

diggernet wrote: post #69
bittercynic wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is still a waste in the sense that productive people spent their time building and maintaining a boat for the benefit of a few rich guys. It would represent reduced waste if the money was instead spent to hire those productive people to build infrastructure for their own communities. Not trying to argue that luxury goods are pure evil, but there is a degree of selfishness in having luxury goods for yourself when t…

So you advocate firing all the hard working folks who designed, built, maintain, repair, clean, and operate that boat, and take care of the passengers? They they too will lack the basics, and the money you just protected from "waste" will need to be used to provide for them.

No, you pay them to do something else for someone else.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#102

Post by AstralStorm »

methodover wrote: post #88
Mitchhhs wrote: post #22

Is inequality a feature or a bug of capitalism? Seems like the general thinking is that its a feature in-so-much as it encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, etc. It seems like it becomes a bug when it reaches a level in which it creates a positive feedback loop of more inequality. As with anything, i've noticed the discussion is really about how much, not should it exist at all. Almost every debate in American pol…

Respectfully, did you read the article? The article argues that it is not capitalism -- competition in a free market -- driving the gap between the top 1% and the rest. Rather it is the efforts on the part of the 1% to monopolize, to drive out competition and protect their position that is the cause.

Which is actually the typical end state of real capitalism as opposed to imaginary capitalist models. Cartel (explicit or implicit collusion) or monopoly. This is because for any single agent cooperation is beneficial even if it is not for the efficiency of the system as a whole. Bigger agents have more potential there. (Purchase removes an agent and competition from the system.) Agents collude on each transaction when they probe the market for expected price. Including for services and labour.

The other systems have this bug as well. Somme people have an intense drive to accumulate power, no matter the cost to others, or rationalize the cost away. Worst are those of them with bad ideas or totally irresponsible.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#103

Post by Retra »

auggierose wrote: post #36
Retra wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump and Brexit are the result of people with too much money making terrible decisions for the rest of us. They're not evidence that rich people should have more power. But incidentally, someone's ability to make a lot of money (or worse: inherit it) doesn't imply that they have any preferential ability to spend it in a way that benefits society. And when someone has the unchecked power to spend massive sums of mone…

I think you get that wrong. Trump and Brexit are the direct result of democratic decisions in countries with a long history of democracy. Denying that isn't helping.

Yes, democratic decisions resulting from massive propaganda campaigns, funded by some extremely wealthy personalities. Obviously the problem here is democracy, not the very few overtly corrupt and overly powerful people undermining it.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#104

Post by humanrebar »

einarvollset wrote: post #66
humanrebar wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem The Walton fortune was earned... by Sam Walton. If he wasn't allowed to leave it to his family, what does property even mean?

Presuming you’re not trolling: take the implication of what you’re saying to it’s natural conclusion (no inheritance tax, no property tax, etc) and explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four? In my view, there should be some correlation between hard work, smarts and financial outcome that isn’t entirely determined at birth.

> Presuming you’re not trolling

A rhetorical question isn't a troll. If someone is a troll, just flag them.

> explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four

As wealthy people die, they give their money to foundations and split it among their progeny and spouses. Some of them, it turns out, aren't great with money. The richest of the rich are no longer Carnegie, Rockefeller, or Weyerhäuser. A few generations out and the fortune is already spreading out naturally. Sure, some grandchildren are regional socialites and minor celebrities, but we're not exactly worried about which politicians Paris Hilton is palling around with.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#105

Post by charlesdm »

AstralStorm wrote: post #100
charlesdm wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these people would've called it quits a long time ago though, if not for the ability of their offspring to have it (much) better than they do. Nothing wrong with that. Some people are born with above average intelligence, or above average physical skills. Nothing wrong with that either. Why shouldn't people be allowed to inherit significant fortunes?

Because fortune on it's own does nothing. (As opposed to investment in manufacturing or research.) The result is stagflation and stagnation in long term. Generally the tax is not supposed to be on inheritance but on unreasonably frozen money. Inheritance tax is a work around. Skills when applied are supposed to be net positive for society. Additionally with money comes influence, media and politics. Stagnation in tho…

There are plenty of heirs that continue to participate in business. Taking their money away isn't going change much, aside from taking their money away.

You act as if all inherited wealth is just sitting in bank accounts. Some is, some isn't, some heirs are active in and good at business, others aren't.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#106

Post by humanrebar »

AstralStorm wrote: post #100
charlesdm wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these people would've called it quits a long time ago though, if not for the ability of their offspring to have it (much) better than they do. Nothing wrong with that. Some people are born with above average intelligence, or above average physical skills. Nothing wrong with that either. Why shouldn't people be allowed to inherit significant fortunes?

Because fortune on it's own does nothing. (As opposed to investment in manufacturing or research.) The result is stagflation and stagnation in long term. Generally the tax is not supposed to be on inheritance but on unreasonably frozen money. Inheritance tax is a work around. Skills when applied are supposed to be net positive for society. Additionally with money comes influence, media and politics. Stagnation in tho…

> Because fortune on it's own does nothing.

Where are the Scrooge McDuck money bins? The money is invested. Or it's spent and someone else has it.

Inheritance tax is a double tax. The money was already subject to income tax, capital gains, property tax, sales tax, etc. If the problem is that capital earnings accumulate faster than labor earnings, then we should just address that problem.

Property isn't about what it does for the rest of society. Property is a human right. Taxes generally are on voluntary actions for a reason. You choose to purchase something, own taxable property, emit carbon, etc. People don't choose to die, so it's an involuntary tax, something we should think about.

Lots of people don't care about the ethical implications for personal reasons, I guess, and that's their prerogative. But there's no moral high ground on not caring about the ethics of property rights.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#107

Post by humanrebar »

charlesdm wrote: post #105
AstralStorm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because fortune on it's own does nothing. (As opposed to investment in manufacturing or research.) The result is stagflation and stagnation in long term. Generally the tax is not supposed to be on inheritance but on unreasonably frozen money. Inheritance tax is a work around. Skills when applied are supposed to be net positive for society. Additionally with money comes influence, media and politics. Stagnation in tho…

There are plenty of heirs that continue to participate in business. Taking their money away isn't going change much, aside from taking their money away. You act as if all inherited wealth is just sitting in bank accounts. Some is, some isn't, some heirs are active in and good at business, others aren't.

Money sitting in bank accounts is typically doing something, too. It's not like they are stacks of bills in a vault gathering dust.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#108

Post by humanrebar »

dcre wrote: post #87
humanrebar wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem The Walton fortune was earned... by Sam Walton. If he wasn't allowed to leave it to his family, what does property even mean?

The Walton fortune was generated by Sam Walton's employees but captured by Sam Walton. What does property mean, indeed.

Those are two different subjects, then. There is inherited money and generated money. If we think it's easy to generate money the wrong way, then there's not much point in lambasting inheritances. That's actually a legitimate way to get money, at least compared to using (unfair) power and information imbalances to always give yourself an (unfair) sweet deal.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#109

Post by AstralStorm »

charlesdm wrote: post #105
AstralStorm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because fortune on it's own does nothing. (As opposed to investment in manufacturing or research.) The result is stagflation and stagnation in long term. Generally the tax is not supposed to be on inheritance but on unreasonably frozen money. Inheritance tax is a work around. Skills when applied are supposed to be net positive for society. Additionally with money comes influence, media and politics. Stagnation in tho…

There are plenty of heirs that continue to participate in business. Taking their money away isn't going change much, aside from taking their money away. You act as if all inherited wealth is just sitting in bank accounts. Some is, some isn't, some heirs are active in and good at business, others aren't.

It is not doing as much as it should. What it does is bring profits to financiers who control it.

This as opposed to direct investment (VC or starting new enterprises). even having a controlling share in a company is not exactly the same. Working on a business is not enough of most of the money gets frozen in fixed assets or rented away to bankers.

Re: Myths of the 1 Percent: What’s Putting People at the Top

#110

Post by 5555624 »

jjeaff wrote: post #57
llamataboot wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"With a combined worth of $2.34 trillion, the Forbes 400 own more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people. The median American family has a net worth of $81,000. The Forbes 400 own more wealth than 36 million of these typical American families." http://www.ips-dc.org/billionaire-bonanza/

That is the favorite to parrot around. It's not that impressive considering the large percentage of the world's population has a negative net worth. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/04/stop-adding...

The quote says, "... the bottom 61 percent of the country combined, a staggering 194 million people." It's not comparing the number to the world's population.
Post reply on HN