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

Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 228 posts

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#171

Post by themartorana »

dnautics wrote: post #130
themartorana wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in the end, the "government" is the only thing maintaining some order. There is no civilization without it - and anyone that tells you differently just can't visualize where "government" exists in their example. When the rules of society get out of whack, government can either help solve the issue, or double down on bad policies. When they do the latter, they eventually become chapters in history books. Yes,…

Government is far from the only thing that maintains "order". I sincerely doubt that the 'fear of getting arrested' is the only thing that keeps me from murdering people on the street, for example. Government is merely one component of society, (or "civil"-ization, if you want to be somewhat more colonial about your usage). Specifically, it's the axis of society where we condone the non-consensual use of physical har…

I agree government should be constrained. That said, while government may not be the only thing keeping you from murdering people, other reasons are not shared across the whole of society. We don't all organize around your religion or moral code, let's say, and because of that, we have government.

It's true that government as a group of representatives of all people is slightly different from the now self-aware monster the (U.S., insert-your-personally-experienced-representative-government-here) government has become. But it's still the single organization we all agree to work through, and so changes made across an entire society most likely have to go through that government.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#172

Post by anke_ »

todd8 wrote: post #149
Mu37 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western society/governments will start looking more and more like the Chinese I feel, cause western society hasn't found any serious alternate way of reigning in the 1%. It will most likely happen after the "something bad" stuff does.

China has greater ratios of inequality than the US. See World Bank figures: http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.9

Which would support the hypothesis. Greater inequality greater the tendencies for authoritarian control. US inequality is on a increasing trajectory with nothing likely to stop it. So where else do we end up?

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#173

Post by ommunist »

No problem with that. Its a system. Rich stays rich, poor stays poor. Exceptions only proves the validity of this general rule.

http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/_pattern/story/foundation/...

My favourite joke about 'How you managed to become a millionaire' has a morale that power and wealth is always inherited. Gates maybe a 'self-made' multibillionaire, but his very functioning in this quality only makes "rich stays rich" principle to stand. I would be fascinated would Gates finance social revolution in Mexico, to make people there less poor. Will never happen, because once you rich, you support agenda of the rich.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#174

Post by ArkyBeagle »

ommunist wrote: post #173

No problem with that. Its a system. Rich stays rich, poor stays poor. Exceptions only proves the validity of this general rule. http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/_pattern/story/foundation/... My favourite joke about 'How you managed to become a millionaire' has a morale that power and wealth is always inherited. Gates maybe a 'self-made' multibillionaire, but his very functioning in this quality only makes "rich stay…

But wouldn't be irresponsible hubris for Gates to meddle in Mexico? It was when William Randolph Hearst meddled in Mexico.

If "social revolution in Mexico" looks like "social revolution in Egypt" then I fail to see a probable upside.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#175

Post by ommunist »

EliRivers wrote: post #164
jonknee wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... And it would further concentrate global wealth into the hands of a few (after you're no longer getting the dividends where do you think they'll go?).

Given that there are no owners, to the employees seems reasonable. With shares eliminated like this, we can have a such a system. Perhaps through some kind of all employee profit sharing system that all the employees agree on. Alternatively, if there has to be ownership, ownership of the company can be split between all employees, and the profits shared amongst them accordingly. I should divulge that by HN standards…

I would only agree on inheritance tax if you simultaneously maintain quality free public education and social lifts.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#176

Post by [deleted] »

adwhit wrote: post #35

HN tends to be extremely reactionary to posts like this. Perhaps because the tech/startup scene is all about getting rich quick, or perhaps because HN has come to partially reflect the personal views of PG. There will be a reckoning. The world is 'unsustainably unequal' at the moment. There are huge problems on the horizon - superbugs, climate change, resource depletion, environmental degradation, overpopulation. The…

[deleted]

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#177

Post by [deleted] »

adwhit wrote: post #111
vixen99 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For nth time can we please stop talking about 'tax-avoiding' as if it's something we should not do? Every sensible individual so arranges their affairs so as to avoid tax as much as possible within the law. Governments of whatever stripe set the tax rules. We citizens obey. Government is always free to change the rules to suit its tax raising objectives. Tax evasion is of course illegal. As UK Judge Lord Clyde stated…

Can I lobby the government to change the law to lower my tax bill? No, I'm not wealthy enough. Top marginal income tax rates in the UK during the 60s were 98%.

[deleted]

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#178

Post by petra »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #144
jonknee wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... And yet Gandhi was right. Those 100,000 British men failed and India is today the world's largest democracy.

He was right and wrong. He was right that 100,000 British men couldn't use lead with obviously-bad situation to control India. He was wrong given small numbers of men used a careful combo of military, money, and media to control U.S., Britain, and India. Currently, India mainly serves as cheap labor to support money-making operations in U.S., Britain, and other countries. Gandhi was ultimately wrong: original exploit…

But in the case of India, didn't they try the other way and it didn't work for them, so they decided to go on the way of liberal economic reforms, while still adapting patent law to their unique circumstances(which i fully support) ?

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#179

Post by ommunist »

aoeuasdf1 wrote: post #167
moultano wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mortgage paymenets are almost entirely interest in the early years. So in many cases there's little difference. People generally don't buy houses in order to rent them. Usually houses are rented out when the owner is moving and decides to rent it out rather than sell, at which point the owner has a substantial amount of capital in the house.

And? Are they supposed to let people use the house for free? It seems like communists are willfully ignorant of the time value of money.

Quite the contrary. Communists understood that only labour creates value, and education gives more value providing opportunities to more sophisticated labour, aka technology, inventions. This is why they gave housing for free to everyone agreed to provide honest labour within the system. The system had flaws, was not free from corruption, but it worked. My mom spent 5 years in toxic plant, was awarded 3 bedroom flat in modern house for free. It allowed her to invest more into my education and give musical education to my brother.

Re: Challenging the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators

#180

Post by Fricken »

Joeri wrote: post #112
mbfg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i understand your sentiment here, and in the view of history this is true. The problem is that now, or very soon, we are/will be in a state where the 1% can easily put down the 99% politically, socially, financially and yes militarily. So there may be a reckoning at some point. But it will and badly for the 99%. This was mostly true throughout history as well, it's just become a more certainty now.

100.000 british men simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate. Throughout history it has been the case that sustained perceived inequality inevitably leads to revolution. We're nowhere near that point, but if trend lines continue and the middle class gets wiped out, it will happen. Democracy is supposed to prevent things from getting that bad, but we have seen that free elections…

If you look at previous eras of great wealth inequality such as the French revolution or the events leading up to the New Deal, the working classes were desperate enough to rise up. Either through force, or through sufficient threat of force they brought about changes that restored some balance to the system.

Nowdays, particularly in America, there is enough wealth to go around such that nobody is really that desperate. The masses are sufficiently pacified, but not so secure that they get funny ideas or opt to drop out and become hippies. We've got them exactly where we want them. So long as no substantial portion of the population goes hungry for more than 3 days everything is cool.

There's other things that have been working well. The ongoing threat of terrorism, black people, and mass surveillance keeps people in their place. Replacing mainstreet with wal-mart, increasing secularism, and the killing off of local media outlets with the internet is very useful for destroying community cohesiveness. It all helps to cultivate the perception that if everything goes to hell, you are alone in the universe and no one will help you. Unless some unknown unkown emerges to throw this all out of balance, there won't be any meaningful pushback, and the 99% will continue to serve us as a natural resource to be exploited.

Post reply on HN