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

Occupy George

occupygeorge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 167 posts

Re: Occupy George

#141

Post by CWuestefeld »

guelo wrote: post #93
Shenglong wrote: post #11

Can someone brief me on what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do? I can't quite figure it out. If they're mad about being unemployed, marching sure isn't going to fix their situation. If they're mad about government corruption, what exactly would they like done? If they're mad about the economy in general, isn't Wall Street the worst place to be protesting? I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first peo…

Inequality has hit a level that has been seen only once in the nation's history, and unemployment has reached a level that has been seen only once since the Great Depression. And, at the same time, corporate profits are at a record high. If you're not mad you're not paying attention.

The meme that "the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer" means that today, the poor must have a worse situation than ever before.

So let's do a thought experiment: suppose that you can choose to go back in time. You can enjoy the 1% level of income at any point in history prior to, say, 1950. What era will you choose? Do you want to go to 1950, or some point in antiquity, or stay with your current income in the present?

Remember, even in 1950, there are no antibiotics, for practical purposes, civil rights are only slightly better than medieval levels, and so on. You won't have access to instant communications, and only through difficulty, to the greatest works of art, music, and literature. And so forth.

So, if you don't want to go back to those times -- even at the top of the economic heap -- can we really say that today's poor are finding their plight worse and worse?

Re: Occupy George

#142

Post by cantastoria »

ppereira wrote: post #119

There is a lot of interesting research on wealth inequality in the US and around the world. For those interested in looking at data, I suggest the following as a starting point: A historical database of top incomes in several countries: http://184.168.89.58/sketch/ A nice theoretical starting point on taxation and inequality: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0002374 Note that the term used to express trade in the first…

1. Increase taxes on the rich.

2. ???

3. Better wealth distribution.

I have yet to see a good explanation for what happens in step 2. Raising taxes on the rich is the easy part. How exactly does that money get redistributed? Are we supposed to suddenly trust the federal government to spend its money wisely? What will they spend it on and why?

The papers you cite talk about wealth distribution as if it's obvious how it is going to happen. I'm not so sure that's the case and if the results of the recent stimulus spending in the US are any guide we need to think of some new ideas before considering this course of action.

Re: Occupy George

#143

Post by ericd »

jamieb wrote: post #138
ericd wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Way to keep it civil. Thanks for cursing me out. I had written up a long response trying to explain how much the large companies these people have founded have helped the American economy compete and people prosper. Then I got to your section implying that crash testing was primarily a way for incumbents to keep startups down rather than being for the public good and I realized that you were either trolling me o…

To which I would have asked "compete against who?" And you would have said "china etc" and I would have said, "Who the fuck do you think let these cheap chinese goods in here in the first place"? You would have then started talking about how economists have proved that international trade is good for jobs. To which I would have replied that americans leading economist said that in 2005 we should all be using ARMs to…

No, not China, that's recent history. We sell our electronics, software, and services to the world. That's competition.

Go to a bar and tell a few people you don't know "Frankly, fuck you" and see if they get annoyed with you.

You're conflating lots of of only slightly related things. I don't remember any economists saying that taking an ARM was a good idea.

I agree that the current state of the govt. is more than a little messed up and outrage is overdue, but you're doing the cause a disservice by talking about the wrong things and generally sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Public-only campaign financing is a good thing to talk about. Talking about how crash testing for cars is used to keep the good guys down is going to get you ridiculed by the opposition, and whatever movement you're associated with will be ridiculed by association.

Re: Occupy George

#144

Post by deadmansshoes »

jjmaxwell4 wrote: post #134
deadmansshoes wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I missing something with this "pie fallacy"? If you restore a car and then sell it to someone that needs a car then surely there is someone else who has sold one less car. The same principle applies to crop prices when all the farmers have a bountiful year. Surely the reason that wealth has grown, is that the human population has grown - creating more needs and desires, and more workers to meet them.

By taking a beat up car worth $200, and buying some parts for $400, and fixing it up and selling it for $1500, you just created $900 for yourself. This is growing the pie. The is not a set amount of wealth in the world. Think about the creation of entirely new industries. Think of how much would be spent on cell phones today were it not for the innovation caused by RIM, Motorola and then Apple. Or cloud computing wer…

Sure, but the $900 dollars would otherwise have gone to buy a car from someone else who fixed up a car or made cars.

I can see how reducing the cost of items or services can make more people "wealthy" - such as being able to buy a second car. But reducing costs normally means reducing wages meaning the owners get richer, and the manual jobs disappear.

Re: Occupy George

#145

Post by kokey »

sambeau wrote: post #75
maigret wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trader? This guy was proved to be a joke. http://www.businessinsider.com/turns-out-the-trader-who-scar...

Clearly he wasn't much of a trader. I did read another article where they interviews other traders about what he had said. While they disagreed with some of his other points they were in general agreement about that one.

Goldman Sachs is expected to report a loss at the next results, seems like ruling the world doesn't guarantee profits ;-)

It's true that day traders don't care if the market is going up or down, just like many specialists focusing on their domain doesn't care that much about the industry that employs them. Some people make money on volatility (day traders), but a lot of others make their money on trading on certainty (pension funds). Some people have a vested interest in seeing certain markets crash, e.g. if your industry struggles because of materials are getting expensive because of high demand from the building industry.

Re: Occupy George

#146

Post by jjmaxwell4 »

deadmansshoes wrote: post #144
jjmaxwell4 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By taking a beat up car worth $200, and buying some parts for $400, and fixing it up and selling it for $1500, you just created $900 for yourself. This is growing the pie. The is not a set amount of wealth in the world. Think about the creation of entirely new industries. Think of how much would be spent on cell phones today were it not for the innovation caused by RIM, Motorola and then Apple. Or cloud computing wer…

Sure, but the $900 dollars would otherwise have gone to buy a car from someone else who fixed up a car or made cars. I can see how reducing the cost of items or services can make more people "wealthy" - such as being able to buy a second car. But reducing costs normally means reducing wages meaning the owners get richer, and the manual jobs disappear.

Reducing costs can often be accomplished through scale, efficiency, improved logistical delivery. Its not always about reducing wages.

Re: Occupy George

#147

Post by ppereira »

cantastoria wrote: post #142
ppereira wrote: post #119

There is a lot of interesting research on wealth inequality in the US and around the world. For those interested in looking at data, I suggest the following as a starting point: A historical database of top incomes in several countries: http://184.168.89.58/sketch/ A nice theoretical starting point on taxation and inequality: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0002374 Note that the term used to express trade in the first…

1. Increase taxes on the rich. 2. ??? 3. Better wealth distribution. I have yet to see a good explanation for what happens in step 2. Raising taxes on the rich is the easy part. How exactly does that money get redistributed? Are we supposed to suddenly trust the federal government to spend its money wisely? What will they spend it on and why? The papers you cite talk about wealth distribution as if it's obvious how i…

2. Actually, with respect to progressive or negative taxation, the redistribution is quite direct. The government takes more from some and distributes it to others through benefits, the EITC, welfare, tax credits, etc. The factor most correlated to income inequality is not total tax revenue and government spending, but the amount of progressivity in the tax scheme.

There are also many market models, only one of which I cited above, that describe the evolution of the income distribution in response to changes in tax schemes. The models are complicated but their basic ideas are not. The redistribution changes market incentives and capitalism does its job to modify the Pareto coefficient and income inequality.

Re: Occupy George

#148

Post by kokey »

tome wrote: post #139
seven_stones wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That dismissal is a bit oversimplistic. With increases in productivity, it is possible for everyone to have more; but almost all the gains have been concentrated toward the top. PG: > I can remember believing, as a child, that if a few rich people had all the money, it left less for everyone else. This is provably true. Just because PG believed it as a child doesn't mean he was incorrect then. It's true by stipulatio…

> If you make a killing off the stock market, someone else necessarily loses. Suppose I hold $100 of XYZ stock. Then the value jumps to $500. I've effectively made $400. Who has lost?

The fools who sold the stock to you initially instead of holding it.

To be honest, I am growing tired of arguing against people who believe that the economy is a zero sum game, along with all the other fallacies. I can just grow wealthy on the back of betting against them, which is what I suspect others are doing.

Re: Occupy George

#149

Post by bdunbar »

jamieb wrote: post #30
Shenglong wrote: post #11

Can someone brief me on what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do? I can't quite figure it out. If they're mad about being unemployed, marching sure isn't going to fix their situation. If they're mad about government corruption, what exactly would they like done? If they're mad about the economy in general, isn't Wall Street the worst place to be protesting? I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first peo…

I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first people to want an economic bounce back. Hence your failure to understand OWS. Wall Street's job is to make money. Period. If it happens that it is effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming the stock market, then that is exactly what they will do. Well, it turns out that it is extremely effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming…

Well, it turns out that it is extremely effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming the stock market.

I am not an economist[1]. Boom and bust cycles - I have read - happen as a natural result of millions of people making informed choices in their own self interest.

Simplistically: Cost of X perks up a bit. People buy in, seeing a trend. Price perks up a bit more. And so on. Rational actors see a bubble - X is valued now way above what it is actually worth. These guys are also paid to make money for their investors - fail to get in the market for X and you'll simply be fired and replaced with a guy who will.

Multiply that by millions and you get booms and busts.

How does one cause a boom and bust cycle, absent a grand cabal of Rich Guys and their cronies? How would _they_ do it?

[1] Would it be lame to say IANAE or has that kind of thing cycled back to cool, yet?

Re: Occupy George

#150

Post by pohl »

Shenglong wrote: post #11

Can someone brief me on what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do? I can't quite figure it out. If they're mad about being unemployed, marching sure isn't going to fix their situation. If they're mad about government corruption, what exactly would they like done? If they're mad about the economy in general, isn't Wall Street the worst place to be protesting? I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first peo…

Chris Hedges says it pretty well in this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAhHPIuTQ5k

Post reply on HN