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

131–136 of 136 posts

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

#131

Post by Synaesthesia »

saiya-jin wrote: post #98
pingou wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point, poverty in Eastern Europe has fallen tremendously after the switch to capitalism, but you're saying it has nothing to do with it? Inequalities might have risen a bit though, I don't know.

yeah, he really cut his own branch very efficiently... we had central planning (with heavy guidance from those f ckers from Moscow that invaded us in '68) that just didn't work in long term. People were considering bananas and oranges exotic hard-to-get stock in shops with empty shelves. I recall my parents standing 2 hour queues in crazy weekend hours in -15 Celsius just to get their son some fruit with vitamin C (o…

Compared to Brazil where people starve to death, life expectancy is way lower, educational standards, medical standards, virtually every social measurement is way lower.

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

#132

Post by soared »

fsloth wrote: post #129
soared wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and interests on investments. That is an absurdly huge claim to make without a source.

This was my interpretation of this graph: http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-an... This was recently in HN if I recall so I did not source it in my comment. We can debate what is the value of owning derivatives but I think we can agree it's not anything like the direct value created by actors?

Incredibly interesting chart which I hadn't seen, thanks. I don't know if I wholeheartedly agree, but I very clearly see your point.

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

#133

Post by icebraining »

Houshalter wrote: post #84
Animats wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The comment you are replying to isn't disagreeing with you. The people who believe property rights are "natural" aren't saying they aren't a human creation at all. Just that they are a human right, like other rights that are also human creations. The justification for this is something like you own your labor and slavery is wrong, and if you use your labor to produce something, it's unfair for anyone to take it from…

The people who believe property rights are "natural" aren't saying they aren't a human creation at all. Just that they are a human right, like other rights that are also human creations.

I don't think this is true; why would it need the "natural" moniker in such case? Natural rights proponents claim that such rights are not invented, but an universal truth, either endowed by a god (like in the US Declaration of Independence) or derived from some natural property, such as human reason.

This is contrast with people who claim that all rights are subjective creations, not an innate property of nature nor a consequence of such, and therefore are not universal.

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

#134

Post by icebraining »

superuser2 wrote: post #89
tim333 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets are basically people buying and selling stuff. If some people sell their houses there hence exists a property market and so on. If I sell houses and sell you a share in my business then shares exist. If you and similar people offer your shares for sale then a stock market exists. So these things come about fairly organically if people buy and sell stuff. The LLCs and similar are embellishments to make things…

That house has value because it is connected to a road, power plant, sewer system, running water, etc. in a municipality that provides schools, EMS, firefighting, police, etc. Its future value is protected by zoning which ensures loud/ugly/polluting/busy buildings will not be located nearby. It is reasonable for the mortgage lender to make the loan because such contracts are enforceable in court, and it can count on…

That's true, the state prevents an unplanned market from arising by taking monopolist control of a bunch of infrastructure and natural resources.

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

#135

Post by newjersey »

rorykoehler wrote: post #130
newjersey wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't down vote (I can't; I don't have the points) but I imagine it is because what you said sounded like a knee jerk reaction or perhaps because you missed the word without in your quote. Or because people are assholes. It doesn't matter. Smile (:

Thanks for your kind reply. I don't really mind, I just find it curious how privileged people can be. Living hand to mouth is very humbling and I'm still easily within the top 50% in terms of global wealth, purely due to having been born in the right place. I never set out to make money anyways (though I would like a little bit more than I have now), but I wouldn't feel comfortable participating in a system I would r…

> Reading posts such as PG's pro-inequality posts I have realised that I have something no rich person could ever have, and that is an insight into how the majority of people in the world think and act, and why this happens.

Do you think you'd lose this insight if you somehow get granted a living fund that pays us say $10k every month for the rest of your life? I mean it is not much money for PG but it'd change a lot in my life. I could probably put away at least $6k out of the $10k every month and still live fairly well. It'd change my daily life. I think I'd still work but I'd probably be able to be much more honest to my bosses. What do you think?

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

#136

Post by rorykoehler »

newjersey wrote: post #135
rorykoehler wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your kind reply. I don't really mind, I just find it curious how privileged people can be. Living hand to mouth is very humbling and I'm still easily within the top 50% in terms of global wealth, purely due to having been born in the right place. I never set out to make money anyways (though I would like a little bit more than I have now), but I wouldn't feel comfortable participating in a system I would r…

> Reading posts such as PG's pro-inequality posts I have realised that I have something no rich person could ever have, and that is an insight into how the majority of people in the world think and act, and why this happens. Do you think you'd lose this insight if you somehow get granted a living fund that pays us say $10k every month for the rest of your life? I mean it is not much money for PG but it'd change a lot…

Yes, absolutely. It would take far less than that to lose it.
Post reply on HN