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

The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

awealthofcommonsense.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 606 posts

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#241

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

ty6853 wrote: post #92
sigmoid10 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population might not be happy, but they don't have the means to change it. Revolutions don't happen when people are mad, they happen when the ones who can afford armies and equipment sense the possibility of coming out on top. 250 years ago George Washington could have financed the entire Revolutionary War out of his own pocket and he still would have retained two thirds of his wealth. Instead he put the losses o…

And now we're paying 10x the fraction of our gdp as the early non war days. The feds are bleeding us dry to line they and their corrupt friends pockets and their public debt.

If we got rid of the federal government, and things didn’t break put into war or anything, would the issue be solved?

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#242

Post by widforss »

Gasp0de wrote: post #158
TobTobXX wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, European here so things might be a little different, but our family's budget for holydays was usually around 1500-2500$. As a result I've never travelled outside Europe. I've only flown to the Canary Islands twice and otherwise travelled by car. Big money saver. And also camping is cheaper compared to AirBnB and hotels. Though you can usually squeeze two weeks out of that budget.

I'm European too, and I also usually don't spend more than 2000€ on holidays per year, but when I compare myself to friends and colleagues, I always had the impression that how we go on holidays (camping, traveling by bicycle/train) was relatively uncommon. Therefore I didn't think that 80% of the population went on holidays like that.

It's the unusual vacations that get time in the coffee break.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#243

Post by abnercoimbre »

mandmandam wrote: post #207
bargainbin wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the wealth is unequal, sure, but look at how much better the human quality of life is compared to even 50 years ago. What is wealth when everyone is fed, watered and entertained? Only stating this as an explanation to why there has not been a civil revolution. People are still dying in poverty with no way to escape every day, and we need to address it.

> the wealth is unequal, sure Do you really understand just how unequal it is? Most Americans vastly underestimate it [0]. And that's from 2013; inequality has rapidly worsened since. Do you understand the effects of that inequality? > look at how much better the human quality of life is compared to even 50 years ago. I don't think this is true. There is quality of life in owning a house, a family house. There is qua…

I admire your restraint while responding. Saying "at least you're not a feudal lord's slave!" is the most uninspiring argument by the intellectually lazy status quo apologists.

(I'm sure the parent isn't in this category, so I'm speaking in general.)

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#244

Post by [deleted] »

weatherlite wrote: post #4

So a stock market and/or real estate crash can actually be good to reduce inequality . In fact I think its about the only way to dramatically reduce inequality. Think about young people trying to buy their 1st home now, its becoming impossible.

[deleted]

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#245

Post by tankenmate »

colechristensen wrote: post #45
ookblah wrote: post #31

I think about this from time to time and I suppose everything is cyclical in the end. Most of us would have been some peasant in the feudal age and when it gets really bad it always ends in a revolution of some sort. It's just on a global scale and timeframe now. As more of the population feels the effects of inequality they won't appeased by just fancy toys and shiny things, they will want change by force. My only s…

There is always an exponential distribution of wealth, it isn’t rational to argue against it. What needs argument is what the exponent is.

Just because there is a power law relationship doesn't justify having such a steep curve. Flatten the curve, the rich should pay more tax.

The alternative is returning to a feudal gilded age where there are a very very small cabal of asset owning lords, a very small class of scribes for the lords, and then a sea of serfs.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#246

Post by bigfatkitten »

like_any_other wrote: post #170
sigmoid10 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most of Elon Musks assets today are also not cash and highly dependent on the federal government going his way on key issues. He's certainly not dumb doing what he does if his goal is to get richer and more powerful. But unlike 200 years ago, we can watch live how that stuff plays out.

For comparison, the war with Iraq (a far less formidable opponent than the globe-spanning British Empire) cost the US-UK alliance $1.1 trillion [1]. Musk's net worth is $353 billion [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Elon_Musk

George Washington didn't have Lockheed Martin's hand in his pocket.

Wars were much cheaper when all you needed were men, horses and small arms.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#247

Post by globular-toast »

ookblah wrote: post #31

I think about this from time to time and I suppose everything is cyclical in the end. Most of us would have been some peasant in the feudal age and when it gets really bad it always ends in a revolution of some sort. It's just on a global scale and timeframe now. As more of the population feels the effects of inequality they won't appeased by just fancy toys and shiny things, they will want change by force. My only s…

There is reason to believe this time might be different. Individuals can't revolt. It takes a critical mass which is only achieved via organisation. Why do you think privacy is forever under attack? The way we are going, future generations won't even have this option.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#248

Post by nicoburns »

jopsen wrote: post #203
nicoburns wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rough (not absolute) wealth equality is a goal in and of itself we want a capitalist economic system to function. Capitalism only efficiently allocates resources if the market value of a good or service closely approximatatoon its "true" value to society. And that ceases to be the case when wealth is very unevenly spread.

Fair point. It's just we often see these "outrageous" statistics without perspective. What has it been historically? Are we still better off than soviet Russia? It so easily becomes: capitalism = bad.

> What has it been historically?

In the latter 20th century we had 80% tax rates.

> Are we still better off than soviet Russia?

That's the wrong question (a very poor state to aim for!). The right questions are: are we better off than we were? And are we as well off as we could be?

> It so easily becomes: capitalism = bad

It so easily becomes "capitalism vs. communism". Where is our imagination to dream better?

(both are bad in my opinion, and for similar reasons (centralisation of power))

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#249

Post by begueradj »

ookblah wrote: post #31

I think about this from time to time and I suppose everything is cyclical in the end. Most of us would have been some peasant in the feudal age and when it gets really bad it always ends in a revolution of some sort. It's just on a global scale and timeframe now. As more of the population feels the effects of inequality they won't appeased by just fancy toys and shiny things, they will want change by force. My only s…

Nowadays is different from the feudal times you referred to. Because the majority of us are brainwashed by the media. When the brain is chained, there is no hope for a revolution.

Re: The top 10% owns 87% of the stocks

#250

Post by Gasp0de »

jltsiren wrote: post #190
Gasp0de wrote: post #108

I was very surprised by the holiday budget. Less than 2500$ for 80% of the population? Does that mean that no one from these 80% stays in a Hotel or AirBnB for longer than a week with their family? No one travels overseas, or if so, only every 5 years or so? 2000$ is what you can easily spend on plane tickets for a family of 4.

Those numbers exclude airfare and other transportation costs. And you need both time and money for a vacation. The average American family probably can't take 2-3 weeks off to travel every year, which makes their vacations shorter and cheaper.

Wow, I didn't know that! In Germany, everyone get's at least 4 weeks of PTO, most jobs get 6 weeks off.
Post reply on HN