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

121–130 of 144 posts

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

#121

Post by fallingfrog »

fallingfrog wrote: post #119
aantix wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free." -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“Alike and equal are not the same thing at all.” ― Madeleine L'Engle, A Wrinkle in Time

It's crazy to me how both capitalist authoritarians and state communist authoritarians will argue that "equal" means "the same". Communists argue this in order to convince you that in order to be equal you have to be equally subservient to the state. Capitalists will argue this to convince you that you can never expect equality since that would mean state communism.

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

#122

Post by aantix »

fallingfrog wrote: post #121
fallingfrog wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Alike and equal are not the same thing at all.” ― Madeleine L'Engle, A Wrinkle in Time

It's crazy to me how both capitalist authoritarians and state communist authoritarians will argue that "equal" means "the same". Communists argue this in order to convince you that in order to be equal you have to be equally subservient to the state. Capitalists will argue this to convince you that you can never expect equality since that would mean state communism.

Most are drawing a distinction for equality - it's about equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

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

#123

Post by AstralStorm »

charlesdm wrote: post #112
AstralStorm wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honestly, VC is probably one of the least attractive investment opportunities around. It's a crapshoot, very high risk, and the returns (if you even get any) are low. It's a lot easier making money through Private Equity deals. If I had $100m, I wouldn't be putting it in a VC fund. Not saying I wouldn't make direct investments, but I would only make those on the assumption the money is gone. I don't think anyone make…

Exactly. Everyone wants to get rich at little risk. This means putting money into blue chips with their huge inefficient bureaucracies and fixed assets.

Moreover the real unasked question is, how the company benefits the society if at all.

Capitalism really promotes amoral and immoral investing. Biggest returns for lowest cost and risk to investors.

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

#124

Post by Para2016 »

200x0 wrote: post #30

Funny to see you people discussing petty caviar-allowance inequality so fervently within your own arbitrary Western borders yet never giving much mindshare to the rampant "developing" country exploitation that is the very source of your general prosperity. I'm a citizen of third-world country that is being sucked dry by the West for its resources and getting its people shackled to the ground by direct support for the…

Yea, you shouldn't be writing it. It's generalized criticism of an entire part of the world.

Your preposterous, jingoistic, anti-Western sentiment has no place in intelligent discussions. You don't even identify what country you are from or if you were even born/raised there.

And also, from your other comments - you live in the West. The very prosperity you are enjoying you are condemning that others have it around you. You are a hypocrite and reading further statements from you is useless.

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

#125

Post by fallingfrog »

aantix wrote: post #122
fallingfrog wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to me how both capitalist authoritarians and state communist authoritarians will argue that "equal" means "the same". Communists argue this in order to convince you that in order to be equal you have to be equally subservient to the state. Capitalists will argue this to convince you that you can never expect equality since that would mean state communism.

Most are drawing a distinction for equality - it's about equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Yes, and the big disconnect seems to be an inability to recognize that access to health care, education, child care, and even a poverty safety net are fantastic ways to give people opportunity. I really think the basic philosophical divides between conservative and liberal America is not as great as it seems- people are just really easily distracted by a media and political system that profits tremendously by making people hate and fear each other.

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

#126

Post by mamon »

dcre wrote: post #118
mamon wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam Walton's employees would not be able to generate that fortune on their own. You seem to underestimate the role of leadership, vision and other business skills in creating a company. Not to mention that many of those employees probably also made their own small fortunes along the way. Also, you make it sound like Sam Walton somehow has a debt of gratitude to a society for it allowing him to get rich. I think that…

The fact that leadership is necessary (which I do not deny) does not imply that some particular share of the resulting surplus value should go to said leadership. The share of surplus value captured by capital is something we get to decide as a society, and the idea that "as much as capital can manage to capture" is a natural and just share is a pervasive and pernicious lie.

But of course it implies exactly that. People should be rewarded for their skills and their contribution to the success of the company, which means that lion's share of profits goes to those on top. And no, we as a society don't get to decide that, because companies are privately owned by individuals, not by society as whole. Why should society decide how should I spend my money?

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

#127

Post by cardiffspaceman »

fnovd wrote: post #96
200x0 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, vastly different views, to the point of being annoying. We, as a country, are not in the business of "country-building" but rather survival and that of avoiding pain. Our government doesn't need talented individuals - they just need brainwashed populace and stability for their power. Thinkers are direct infraction to the system and usually are not tolareted. Also, what do you expect disarray of talented in…

So you solution (highlighted in point 4) is to move to a Western country and become part of the problem?

I think the "casual game theory" of (4) is, if you want to improve those places, let them have work visas. There are people in certain countries who can be empowered through work visas to pursue their calling (pastors in churches, teaching mathematics in universities, sizing contact lenses of the rich and idle or whatever). Those who choose not to apply for the visas will maybe try something at home, knowing they can get that work visa if what they try doesn't work. And maybe in the trying they will find a different calling than they thought. In succeeding at the things they try at home they might lower the need for work visas.

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

#128

Post by Terr_ »

aantix wrote: post #122
fallingfrog wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to me how both capitalist authoritarians and state communist authoritarians will argue that "equal" means "the same". Communists argue this in order to convince you that in order to be equal you have to be equally subservient to the state. Capitalists will argue this to convince you that you can never expect equality since that would mean state communism.

Most are drawing a distinction for equality - it's about equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Except all (positive) outcomes are opportunities in another context. It's a continuous process.

The most obvious place to see this is looking at parents' economic outcomes versus their kids' development opportunities, but it doesn't even have to be generational.

If you have a sack of money (outcome), you automatically have many more options (opportunity) for creating a larger stack of money. Imagine a fair and random gambling game: Insolvent players are removed from the game, so the player with the deepest pockets at the beginning has the best opportunity of winning everything.

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

#129

Post by haberman »

ryandrake wrote: post #115
haberman wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Financial aid exists. Phillips Exeter's web page says that families with income under $75,000 pay $0 of tuition: https://www.exeter.edu/admissions-and-financial-aid I went to boarding school and came from a family of two church musicians. Some of my classmates came from wealthy families, others came from very modest backgrounds.

Raise your hand if you think Mark Zuckerberg got need-based financial aid. Hint: Both parents were doctors. Him being ranked at the same "self-made level" as a middle class kid that went to a state school is ludicrous.

I can agree with that wrt. Zuckerberg, I just take exception to the idea that every boarding school kid was born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

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

#130

Post by charlesdm »

AstralStorm wrote: post #123
charlesdm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, VC is probably one of the least attractive investment opportunities around. It's a crapshoot, very high risk, and the returns (if you even get any) are low. It's a lot easier making money through Private Equity deals. If I had $100m, I wouldn't be putting it in a VC fund. Not saying I wouldn't make direct investments, but I would only make those on the assumption the money is gone. I don't think anyone make…

Exactly. Everyone wants to get rich at little risk. This means putting money into blue chips with their huge inefficient bureaucracies and fixed assets. Moreover the real unasked question is, how the company benefits the society if at all. Capitalism really promotes amoral and immoral investing. Biggest returns for lowest cost and risk to investors.

You generally don't get rich investing in the stock market. You stay rich.

I think you have things wrong; companies aren't set up to benefit society. They're set up to benefit a select group of individuals.

Post reply on HN