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

131–140 of 144 posts

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

#131

Post by chrisbennet »

mamon wrote: post #126
dcre wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, reward them for their skills and work - not what they can capture of someone else’s hard work. It is an article of faith in some quarters that someone who manages to put themselves in a position where they can skim the labor from employees or renters somehow means they are a wealth creator. Usually though, these “wealth creators” are just capturing wealth generated by someone else.

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

#132

Post by dcre »

mamon wrote: post #126
dcre wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Whether it’s really yours is what we’re arguing about.

You’ve just made the interesting argument that because it’s yours, it’s yours. Not sure I’m convinced by that.

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

#133

Post by Retra »

auggierose wrote: post #113
Retra wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And these overtly corrupt and overly powerful people exist within old democracies. You might have a nice and naive imagination of what democracy could be, but you shouldn't deny what it is RIGHT NOW.

What it is RIGHT NOW, is fixable. I don't know what you're trying suggest be done instead.

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

#134

Post by sigi45 »

sumedh wrote: post #79
sigi45 wrote: post #19

Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit. It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet. It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a mo…

> I believe, there should be an upper limit. What should be the upper limit and who defines it?

society

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

#135

Post by sigi45 »

WalterBright wrote: post #58
sigi45 wrote: post #19

Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit. It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet. It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a mo…

In what way has a rich person in America spent their money in a way that infringes upon your rights?

Bill Gates can buy a country. Bill Gates could buy tanks. Bill Gates could buy an arme.

Bill Gates house animal have probably more security than i have.

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

#136

Post by sigi45 »

auggierose wrote: post #20
sigi45 wrote: post #19

Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit. It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet. It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a mo…

I don't know. Somebody needs to make those huge decisions, and it is not always clear if that should be by democratic means (here is to you, Trump and Brexit).

Whatever is a good idea, money should not be it.

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

#137

Post by sigi45 »

vlehto wrote: post #28
sigi45 wrote: post #19

Whatever the reason was, that a family or people where able to accumulate that much wealth: I believe, there should be an upper limit. It is not okay for people like Bill Gates (i do think he is a good person) or Mark Zuckerberg to have that much power on such a small planet. It is awesome that someone like Bill Gates spends tons of money for research etc. but he should not be able to make such huge decisions in a mo…

Is that a real problem? Seems like 5 richest US citizens own less than 0,5% of all US assets. I'd be lot more worried about organizations. JP Morgan chase and General Electric are not exactly democratic either. Both are way richer than Gates. And while church of latter day saints is not quite in the same league, it's incredibly wealthy and not at all democratic. If you assume that Gates foundation gets 5% profits and…

I'm not worried about it, i think its a problem.

Also

i think the power of companies is a problem too.

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

#138

Post by civilian »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #70
jjeaff wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much of a response. The interview treated Koch influence on politics as a forgone conclusion. (Because it is and Charles didn't seem to argue otherwise). The point of the interview was to learn about his personal philosophy. Something of which wouldn't be of much interest were it not for his huge amount of influence (that, again, no one is arguing). As for the final thrust of this response, on how Koch helped sto…

> it's likely nothing nefarious It's legal because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, but I hope that, before the Koch brothers pass away, we'll see a constitutional amendment overturning this egregious decision. The idea that money = speech is toxic to democracy.

So, what makes newspaper exempt from this? They can publish opinion pieces on who to support, and they are spending a lot of money in producing newspaper. Surely that _should_ violate McCain-Feingold? Except it didn't, because there was a special exemption for media. What makes that fair?

Let's say I'm an individual, and I support Santa Claus for president. But I'm also a famous personality, and I spend a million dollars to put on a free speaking tour where I support Santa Claus for president. Aren't I using money to support my speech? I'm not just using my mouth, I'm using my money to pursue my first amendment rights.

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

#140

Post by vlehto »

odonnellryan wrote: post #62
vlehto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a real problem? Seems like 5 richest US citizens own less than 0,5% of all US assets. I'd be lot more worried about organizations. JP Morgan chase and General Electric are not exactly democratic either. Both are way richer than Gates. And while church of latter day saints is not quite in the same league, it's incredibly wealthy and not at all democratic. If you assume that Gates foundation gets 5% profits and…

I think at the end of the day it approaches dystopian levels of "what can we do?" against these people if they were to behave in ways that the majority of society deems irresponsible. If Gate's wanted to he could cause immense harm in the country. It can be argued that some like the Koch's and Mercer's are doing that harm: depending on your political views. What could be done? These people are literally untouchable.…

Yeah, but what should you fear from organizations? It's easy to scrutinize an individual. It's lot more difficult to scrutinize an organization. It's actually difficult to even stay interested in them.

I'd claim that if Gates would have wanted to cause maximum harm, he would not have earned millions of dollars first. Just found an organization and go evil. It's more straight forward, less suspicious and more effective. Just look at Scientology.

Post reply on HN