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

Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

oxfam.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 136 posts

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#31

Post by br_smartass »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10
monochromatic wrote: post #7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&feature=youtu.be... Rising inequality on its own is not a problem.

It is a problem if only because of the huge power differential it creates and the segregation it leads to. It doesn't result in healthy societies.

The kind of argument the OP is trying to make makes no sense to me, the only reason I see for us to "trust the market/system" is because it promises the most efficient allocation of resources, fairest compensation for value provided and opportunity and development for all. If it fails, it fails. I don't see how obcene inequality and all the problems of human misery that comes with it(which goes from insecurity to violence to even wars) isn't an instance of economics failling its own proposition(I will admit it does like 1% of it, tho).

The most efficient society would be one where money and resources goes where it's needed and that it would create virtuous cycles(e.g.: take people out of misery -> they become economic agents -> everyone's work serves needs of someone else -> development -> world GDP increases -> humankind is able to do more things -> society gets star-wars-like capabilities -> more people more happy)

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#32

Post by ps4fanboy »

The global economy is in a transitional period, computerization has made inequality rise, but also Women working has led to higher inequality among families, Robotics and further automation of current industries will make things much worse for the people currently alive. There isnt a clear solution, what will ultimately happen is people working less and a higher percentage working in higher skilled jobs.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#33

Post by taivare »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #9

Massive income inequality hurts economic growth. Why? The rich don't spend (much of) their money, they hoard it.

Life was better for everyone when we had a demand side economy. The working class and middle , had some money to put back into the economy, even after they paid there bill's. I was only a kid in the 60's but I had eye's, and society was more equal and better for everyone.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#34

Post by iofj »

rboyd wrote: post #18

Strange to see a Rothschild speak out against inequality. (FTA) Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild [...] said: “Oxfam’s report is just the latest evidence that inequality has reached shocking extremes, and continues to grow. It is time for the global leaders of modern capitalism, in addition to our politicians, to work to change the system to make it more inclusive, more equitable and more sustainable."

Not really. The rich are far more invested than anyone else in "the system" (that made and keeps them rich) being "inclusive, equitable and sustainable". Especially the sustainable part. That effectively means "keeping themselves rich".

The poor are not very invested in the system (they should be, of course, since without an economy their fate would be far worse, but human nature means you're not going to be happy having less than everyone else, even if destroying the system would make sure you have much less). This is the basis of Marxism, and of course it's true. In a way jealousy gets in the way of rational thought.

This is one of the really good parts of capitalism. It concentrates power with people who want and need the system to succeed and who have very little power to use force to secure specific outcomes.

You may agree to this to varying extents, but just compare China's attempts to stabilize it's currency with the US ones. China : 208 people in the financial industry (and counting) "disappeared", a lot of them with reports of the police asking for them right before their disappearance. US: so far 1 person arrested, and a lot of people agree that it's for a good reason, not just the government. You might say "but the US gave boatloads of money to the banks/rich !". Well, yes. But there's no difference there, so did Europe, so did China ... [1]

[1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4568598e-8731-11e2-9dd7-00144...

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#35

Post by iofj »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #6
ekianjo wrote: post #3

Yet poverty as a whole is decreasing according to numerous measures. Plus their report contradicts the world bank observations: http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Glob... Which is not surprising since Oxfam has a clear political agenda. EDIT: world bank poverty report, clearly showing the decreasing poverty rates globally: http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/G...

"Absolute" poverty, yes.

When it comes to food on the table, or material wealth in general, that's the only kind that matters.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#36

Post by lifeisstillgood »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #27
chiaro wrote: post #11

This sure seems to be HN's flavor of the month (and possibly for good reason). One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. LLC's and Delaware C-Corps didn't materialise out of the aether, nor did the property rights regarding their shares. I dislike the concept of "deserving" at the best of times, but under this light, those that are the most successful reap their rewards…

>One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. Probably because most capitalists don't believe this? >nor did the property rights regarding their shares. Debatable. Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist and that "shares" are simply an agreed upon way of dividing property rights over a complexity of assets and agreements (i.e. a business). >Taxing la…

> Since when is it the legislature's job to enforce morality

Our laws are a constantly shifting mirror of our ethics (through the prism of "everyone" and "political reality")

Look at divorce, abortion, women's property rights, environmental obligations etc etc

The GP is well placed to say if a company is acting legally but unethically changing the law is often fastest and simpler fix -most eapecially for whole industries (hello banking)

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#37

Post by AKifer »

jqm wrote: post #19

2.7 million puts one in the richest 1%? Unexpected, but I guess it makes sense. There are still a lot of very poor in the world. I started to think "injustice" when I saw the article, but 2.7 million will barely buy a nice house in some parts of the US. I suppose in some ways wealth is still relative. I guess I'm more curious about what percentage of world assets the .001% control.

Among the 1% I bet the top 1% are weighting a lot too and so on. IMO the issue is pointless, it's just a statistical mirage, discussing about that won't make you richer or poorer, just time wasting. AND among the 1%, the majority of them would think about the same injustice back in the days they worked hard to earn, until they got the "chance" of being rich themselves.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#38

Post by br_smartass »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #30
jqm wrote: post #19

2.7 million puts one in the richest 1%? Unexpected, but I guess it makes sense. There are still a lot of very poor in the world. I started to think "injustice" when I saw the article, but 2.7 million will barely buy a nice house in some parts of the US. I suppose in some ways wealth is still relative. I guess I'm more curious about what percentage of world assets the .001% control.

1% is just tugging at heart strings, marketing. If you further divide that 1% you'll find it like you suggest is much worse than that. 0.001% seems more likely.

It's very clearly an exponential curve, 0.001% probably has a disproportional share of 1% and so on.

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#39

Post by calibraxis »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #27
chiaro wrote: post #11

This sure seems to be HN's flavor of the month (and possibly for good reason). One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. LLC's and Delaware C-Corps didn't materialise out of the aether, nor did the property rights regarding their shares. I dislike the concept of "deserving" at the best of times, but under this light, those that are the most successful reap their rewards…

>One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not discovered. Probably because most capitalists don't believe this? >nor did the property rights regarding their shares. Debatable. Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist and that "shares" are simply an agreed upon way of dividing property rights over a complexity of assets and agreements (i.e. a business). >Taxing la…

That’s what legislatures do all day. (And economists are generally theologians masquerading as scientists.) For instance, capitalism requires enormous legislation and bureaucracy. Starting with a property regime (so I can "own" natural resources), police to beat those who disobey, throw people off their land so nearly everyone has to obey capitalists/managers all day, and so on. All backed by a bizarre morality.

(And the more you get closer to so-called pure free markets, the more bureaucracy there is. Take Graeber's "Iron law of liberalism": "Any market reform, government initiative intended to reduce red tape and promote market forces will have the ultimate effect of increasing the total number of regulations, the total amount of paperwork, and the total number of bureaucrats the government employs.")

Re: Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

#40

Post by lifeisstillgood »

"The existence of a billionaire is a clear indicator of one or more market failures"

I have been banging this around my head for a while since PG's infamous essay. There are plenty of reasons to see wildly successful people as talented, special etc. But nowhere near enough to believe them to be superhuman. Nor as rare as might be expected.

Becoming a billionaire (or member of top 1% or what have you) is not something that can only be achieved by a certain fraction of the population, like being over 6'6'

There must be market distortions that fail to share out the vast wealth of the Russian oilfields? Similarly for not sharing the license fees of MSWord or the markup on Amazon books.

Maybe PG is right and we need thousands more entrepreneurs out for themselves, and we shall see the inequalities of the world sort themselves out through "market" action.

Which would mean still we need politicos action (why not more female entrepreneurs? What about highly regulated industries?)

Post reply on HN