The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper • Hacker News Board

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#101

Post by zvanness » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 3:17 AM UTC

Not trying to be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, but how many people have actually heard of the Rothschild Family? Niall Ferguson wrote a book on them called "The House of Rothschild: Money's Prophets". He said their wealth is measured not in the billions but in the trillions. They and a handful of other families have single handily started and funded wars, overthrown governments, chosen presidents and leaders, established central banks in almost every country, bought out the largest shares in every major news outlet, etc.

The problem is that these few that have their hands on almost everything just don't know when to stop. They truly have no mercy.

http://www.amazon.com/The-House-Rothschild-Prophets-1798-184...

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#102

Post by 1stop » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 3:26 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #100

1stop wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well sure if you limit your sample size to "The richest country in the world" then yeah you are doing great! 5 Stars! The world is perfect. Go Team America! Meanwhile there are more people than the entire population of the US starving else where. I'd hazard the guess that that's worse than at any other time in history.

> Meanwhile there are more people than the entire population of the US starving else where. I'd hazard the guess that that's worse than at any other time in history. Considering that there are more people now than at any other time in history, this almost always a safe and lazy guess to make (that their are more people in situation X than at any other time in history).

Right, which is why I made it. But to use that as an excuse is to say: "An individual Human life is worth less now than before", which is at the very least controversial.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#103

Post by brucefancher » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 3:28 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #64

bsbechtel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Perhaps it's an inherent property of capitalism: some things always end up barely within reach of a lower class. I wouldn't say that's true, we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them. Take a look at agriculture in the US...even the poorest people here have access to (not very healthy) food whereas just under 100 years…

> we just need to figure out ways to produce those things cheaply enough (through automation, other technologies) that everyone can enjoy them But, therein lies a paradox, right? I mean, when you seek to lower the cost of production through automation, technology, etc. you wind up displacing human workers, reducing labor demand, and putting downward pressure on wages. BTW, I'll add that lower wages are another signif…

Wow. Open your eyes. The "poor" today live lives that kings couldn't imagine a few generations ago.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#104

Post by 1stop » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 3:28 AM UTC

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #57

Inequality whining has already jumped the shark.

Can't those poor coloured people just die already, they are disturbing my white privilege! /s

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#105

Post by gnaritas » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 3:36 AM UTC

gesman wrote: post #42

Poor are not staying poor by their "struggle to prosper". Poor are staying poor by keeping doing things that keeping them poor, like getting further down in debt, not acquiring new skills, not being productive and not expressing their creativity. And of course rich have their habits as well. Give money to poor guy, take all the money from rich guy and see where they are in in 5 years. Chances are they'll be back to t…

You have no idea what youre talking about; you're suffering from the just world fallacy, you are simply wrong. Your statement is beyond ignorant.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#106

Post by seanmcdirmid » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 3:46 AM UTC

1stop wrote: post #102

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile there are more people than the entire population of the US starving else where. I'd hazard the guess that that's worse than at any other time in history. Considering that there are more people now than at any other time in history, this almost always a safe and lazy guess to make (that their are more people in situation X than at any other time in history).

Right, which is why I made it. But to use that as an excuse is to say: "An individual Human life is worth less now than before", which is at the very least controversial.

As a fact, it's vacuous. No one was using it as an excuse.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#107

Post by saalweachter » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 4:03 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #94

saalweachter wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sort of. In the US, about 85% of households are "food secure". Non-capitalist sources -- eg, charities or government assistance -- close the gap for about 9% of households, and in the remaining 6% of households one or more people are missing meals. I don't really think that's a success.

Being able to complain about 94% food security is something of a social miracle, in the grand arc of history.

Yeah, I'm not sure whether to say "only 85%[1]" or "a full 85%". Regardless, it's less than the 100% we should be aiming for.

[1] Side quibble: 94% is capitalism + socialism; capitalism alone is only giving you 85%, and that's if you don't count minimum wage as non-capitalist.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#108

Post by fennecfoxen » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 4:13 AM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #79

kiba wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, this "race-to-the-bottom" walmart-ization of our economy seems to be, in large part, responsible for the income disparity we see today. It does the poor no good if they can't even afford the cheapest good.

You guys are opening up a whole other can of worms getting into labor. We tend to think of labor as a cost of production and something to be minimized. Maybe we need to start thinking of labor as a (actually, the main) party responsible for creating the value the firm produces for society. Anytime value is created, it can go to 4 parties - the consumer (lower prices), the government (taxes), the shareholders (through…

> Maybe we need to start thinking of labor as a (actually, the main) party responsible for creating the value the firm produces for society.

Right. That's pretty much straight Marxist ideology. (I say this as a matter of fact, not as a matter of denigration per se.)

Idea for you.

It's a free country, relatively speaking. So if labor is truly primarily responsible for the value in something, perhaps you and a bunch of laborers should get together and start a business providing value to people, and paying lots of money to the labor. Assuming the labor is the primary thing that generates value, it should be easy - in fact, they can attract the best labor by paying more than they'd get in a regime which does not value their output.

If, however, you find that it is really hard to get started because it takes a lot of money to buy equipment (or to pay salaries of people programming vast troves of computer-code, which is more or less custom-manufactured capital)... if you find that it's hard to get started with labor alone, then you've effectively demonstrated that capital provides a significant part of the value.

Silicon Valley may provide a few interesting case studies for you if you wish not to do the exercise yourself at this time.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#109

Post by bsbechtel » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 4:25 AM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #89

kiba wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, this "race-to-the-bottom" walmart-ization of our economy seems to be, in large part, responsible for the income disparity we see today. It does the poor no good if they can't even afford the cheapest good.

I could read that two ways and I'm not sure which you intended. 1.) That no matter how cheap we make things, it does no good if the production of those goods causes some to be so much poorer (even down to zero) that they still cannot afford it. If that's what you meant, then we are in agreement. 2.) That we need to make things cheaper however we can, so that the poorest can afford it. If that was your point, then wel…

I meant there is still lots of technology to be developed that can make many goods much cheaper than they are today, and as they become cheaper due to technology, then more people will be able to afford those goods.

I wasn't really thinking too deeply on how the cost of labor affects the price of goods, but I tend to have the general attitude that if everyone in a firm (including management and the owners will accept 0 profits) wants to work for free to make their goods the cheapest on the market, then they are free to do so (and there is a reason you don't see this in our society...it doesn't last long). However, I think it's a crime, and a serious problem when shareholders and top management reap billions in profits off the backs of thousands of wage workers who earn $7.25/hr and then rely on government welfare programs to support themselves...that's basically the government subsidizing cheap labor for big corporations.

Re: The world’s rich stay rich while the poor struggle to prosper

#110

Post by mattmcknight » Thu, Jan 30, 2014, 4:28 AM UTC

specialist wrote: post #87

old-gregg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their disagreement stems from the difference in how they define "poor". Gates is certainly right (it just takes a bit of traveling to agree with him) that hungry-and-dying type of poor is rapidly disappearing all over the world. But if you look at living-hand-to-mouth poor, I can understand John's reasoning. Yes, average incomes (productivity) have gone up but you also see how prices on commodities are rapidl…

"Look at insane costs of healthcare/education in the US - no doubt caused, in part, by "free money" either through government-assisted programs or employer-sponsored insurance." Huh? Even with the modest ACA reforms implemented to date, the growth of healthcare costs has already slowed down. First time since the 90s. Medicare, which is most akin to single payer in other countries, is the most efficient guarantor (hig…

"Even with the modest ACA reforms implemented to date, the growth of healthcare costs has already slowed down."

It's sort of hard to parse what you are saying, but the growth in spending (not costs) went down before the enacting of PPACA. This is likely due to the recession, and something of a counterpoint to those that claim healthcare is subject to inelastic demand.

Having the highest medical loss ratio is not equivalent to being the most efficient, as many services do not warrant claims. Capitation is inferior to market pricing in many ways and not "required" to reduce costs. Another solution is to force providers to charge a single posted price to all consumers, instead of practicing price discrimination. This achieves the purported benefit of single payer, while still allowing for people to choose how much they want to spend on medical services.

Tuition costs rose as subsidies increased. Without subsidies, they couldn't have risen. This created a bubble, which often happens when the government provides price insensitive support to markets.

I am not saying that these are the only answers, but you seem awfully sure of some counterfactuals...