171–180 of 399 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Small local police departments are also staffed by the 90%, though. I find it difficult to imagine an uprising against the 1% in America any time soon, but if it did happen I can absolutely imagine the police siding against the 1%.
Considering the top 1% is ~$450K per year per household, I'd wager plenty of folks on HN are in the top 1% if they are a two income household.
I feel that America is in the midst of a new gilded age; instead of Standard Oil, we have Amazon. Like the late 1920s, we saw losses in purchasing power of the average American, the collection of wealth among the top 1%, and disruption of our civic spaces as a result. I think the thing that many Americans aren't aware of was just how violent that time in US history was[1]. The US economy isn't just about how comforta…
Except we actually had a functioning federal government during the last gilded age, so we ended up with things like the Sherman Antitrust Act, and eventually the New Deal. I doubt we'll be so lucky this time around. Things are about to get absolutely brutal for the 90%.
I feel that America is in the midst of a new gilded age; instead of Standard Oil, we have Amazon. Like the late 1920s, we saw losses in purchasing power of the average American, the collection of wealth among the top 1%, and disruption of our civic spaces as a result. I think the thing that many Americans aren't aware of was just how violent that time in US history was[1]. The US economy isn't just about how comforta…
The silver lining of this interpretation is that it implies our current trajectory to be cyclical, and not exponential. We may have to re-learn some lessons the hard way in the meantime, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the same New Deal that likely extended the length of the Great Depression by a significant multiple?
This goes against every ounce of history I've been taught.
Depending on who you ask, the New Deal was either ineffective because it was fundamentally flawed, or ineffective because it wasn't big enough and didn't raise enough debt. [2]
Basically, "economic science" as usual...
That's crazy. Let's say the average home price in the U.S. is $200K. If this was cash, he could buy 750,000 houses. There's about 250 million people over 18 in the U.S. so Bezos could buy a house for roughly 1 in every 330 adults in the U.S. That's just unfathomable.
He wouldn't be able to do it because houses dont materialize with the creation or burning of money.
Hardly. He’s a pauper compared to John D. Rockefeller who died in 1937. At the time of his death his assets equaled 1.5% of America’s total economic output. With a $20T GDP that would be a $300B net worth in today’s dollars or around 200% what Bezos is worth. Don’t worry. This second gilded age that we are living in is on track to ensure we have a trillionaire in short order.
Why bother with historical comparisons ? I hear it frequently reported that Putin is currently worth $200 Billion ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is an interesting way to compare wealth between time periods but I'm not sure it's the most valid method.
You spoke my mind. For one, Rockefeller grew rich quickly coz there wasn’t as much regulation as compared to what Bezos had to face. On the other hand, Rockefeller wasn’t in the Internet age and Bezos banker on the exponential rise of internet. I am sure there are many more variables.
Bezos rode the boom in the internet revolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You spoke my mind. For one, Rockefeller grew rich quickly coz there wasn’t as much regulation as compared to what Bezos had to face. On the other hand, Rockefeller wasn’t in the Internet age and Bezos banker on the exponential rise of internet. I am sure there are many more variables.
One of those variables is likely tax rates. Back then, federal income tax was way way lower than what it is today. At some point the highest income tax bracket was 7% but today it's 37%. I'm not a history buff but Google says social security taxes first started in 1937. That could be potentially another 13% less taxes paid back then. Also Google says corporate tax was hovering around 12% during the 1920s but it's upp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its combined with inhumane conditions as a requirement to stay employed, yes.
So what would you consider a "humane rate" to pay someone to work in inhumane conditions? $20/hr? $100/hr?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the day, most people grew up working on a farm/ranch/etc. and actually knew how to use a pitchfork. I'm trying to imagine today's obese generation trying to physically overthrow the government and can't help thinking that it wouldn't go so well.
Most Americans have guns. The police has better weapons, but it would be a war of attrition, and I doubt most police would want to go on killing sprees against their fellow countrymen. Although I doubt it'd reach the point of massive insurrection. That would require a total loss of trust in the government, and I think we're still far from that.
Merely owning guns is different than possessing the physical ability and training in weapons and tactics to use them effectively, especially versus military or paramilitary forces (National Guard and Border Patrol is a much more likely initial pro-government force than police). Not only are they equipped and trained with the same weapons civilians may have, they also have automatic weapons, nightvision, grenades, armored vehicles, helicopters, tear gas, sonic weapons, fire trucks, and a lot more.