Are super-rich people just better at making money? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#301

Post by specialist » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 2:51 PM UTC

kevin_nisbet wrote: post #149

Regardless of the rest, I like how this article shows the relationship of it's not the same bet to get back to where you started. I've observed very similar mistakes a number of times in how that % relationship works. It really reminds me of Eve Online. It's been a many years, but once upon a time when I did play it, we were looking at different sensor jammers. And the ones that looked like the worst were actually th…

wrt Eve Online, I've long thought that game economies could support public discourse. Just like how SimCity informs debates about land use.

Of course "real world" games, which don't nerf winner-takes-all, wouldn't be much fun to play for the non-winners.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#302

Post by candiodari » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #244

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the exact opposite of what happens in the real world. In the world the state builds and owns a lot public housing and this depresses rents and property values. Countries stop doing this when policy is captured by neoliberal dogma. The UK is a perfect example. Housing was relatively affordable before a disastrous "right to buy" policy in the 70s, with extra enforced restrictions on state house building, destroy…

Right to Buy didn't destroy the housing market. The same people who lived in council housing bought it under Right to Buy. The problem was not building more housing to cope with increased demand. That would've happened regardless of whether the Right to Buyers were renting off the council or had bought their property. > In the world the state builds and owns a lot public housing and this depresses rents and property…

But you can't keep building ... that's not good for the environment!

It's society enforcing these restrictions, and we absolutely do not want to let go of them. Compromising at all on any of them is considered evil ...

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#303

Post by HPsquared » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 2:54 PM UTC

flawn wrote: post #237

gabesullice wrote: post #97

This is a dishonest piece. It ignores that it's based on a zero-sum game and the world isn't zero sum. The quoted economists know that very well. I like that the coin flip game illustrates the concept of compounding interest, but it doesn't model wealth creation at all. Most new ventures aren't I-win-you-lose, they're we-win-or-I-lose. Wealthy people really can take bigger bets more frequently like the article sugges…

The only reason why it isn't zero sum is because we get access to more resources, and this leads de facto to more money in the pool (money resources) right? If we assume the best case that these new resources are distributed equally and not depending on wealth, then the Yard Model still holds in place as we talk about relative percentages.

Not even that, simple bartering increases value by distributing items away from the people who don't want them, to the people who do. Value is subjective.

If we each start with one red and one blue pen, but I prefer red pens and you prefer blue, we (voluntarily) trade the pens and each have two of our favourite colour. Net gain!

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#304

Post by dontreact » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 3:06 PM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #47

smilekzs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I've noticed consistently, is when politicians talk about "taxing the wealthy", they almost always follow that with "earning more than $xxxk a year". This is conflating wealth with income. Being within this tax bracket myself, I do not deny that I am biased, but I do hope this bullshit gets called out hard whenever someone brings up yet another underhanded measure to milk us (typical SFBay SWE) above and be…

As a practical matter, it is very difficult to tax wealth (and even harder to do it fairly.) I don't think the issue is lack of will but lack of plan that actually works in the face of assets with unclear value and/or difficult to liquidate. And this doesn't just affect the ultra rich but people like SWE too. How much is the stock you have in the non-public company you work at really worth? SWE are probably one of th…

It’s hard problem that can only be solved through attempts and iteration. The fact that a wealth tax is difficult is not a good enough reason to not try, because the problem of wealth inequality is so severe now.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#305

Post by newZWhoDis » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 3:08 PM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #3

To solve all this, it's pretty simple, and the U.S. actually used to do it: heavily tax the super rich. Heavy taxation and then appropriate use of those funds for education, R&D funding, infrastructure, etc. is actual trickle-down economics. And mega corporations should be heavily taxed instead of holding the country economically hostage. They jumpstart their companies off of government funding and R&D and then act a…

If the government is not bound by a balanced budget amendment (can spend more than it takes in), and can print money whenever it wants, why do I pay taxes?

If the entire monetary system is fake, why do they need 40+% of my paycheck?

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#306

Post by ChuckNorris89 » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 3:10 PM UTC

Leherenn wrote: post #231

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some details for the non initiated?

You declare all the assets you own* in your tax declaration (bank accounts, properties, art, cars, equity, ...), even if abroad. You also declare your debts. I don't know how they enforce/check that, especially for foreign-based assets though. * except for household and personal common usage goods

OK, cool, but you didn't explain how does that fix wealth inequality in Switzerland or make wealth taxation fair? You just described a tax declaration system, not a taxation system.

Anyone can declare assets anywhere but if they're not taxed, or taxed very little, then inequality grows. So does Switzerland do this better or fairer than other countries?

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#307

Post by prottog » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #65

bamboozled wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To solve all this, it's pretty simple," I feel if it was simple it would be fixed?

It's because of who is in control, who has also brainwashed the poor into "someday this could be you living this lifestyle".

> brainwashed the poor

Yes, let the enlightened bureaucrats and their Ivy League-educated advisors make the decisions for the great unwashed masses who clearly cannot think for themselves.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#308

Post by dontreact » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

gabesullice wrote: post #97

This is a dishonest piece. It ignores that it's based on a zero-sum game and the world isn't zero sum. The quoted economists know that very well. I like that the coin flip game illustrates the concept of compounding interest, but it doesn't model wealth creation at all. Most new ventures aren't I-win-you-lose, they're we-win-or-I-lose. Wealthy people really can take bigger bets more frequently like the article sugges…

Wealth isn’t zero sum but power over law (as defined by who has influence over the rules we live by) is.

When you have concentration of power due to concentration of wealth, the society will become unstable and undemocratic.

So even though wealth isn’t zero sum, wealth inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed for long term stability.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#309

Post by bamboozled » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #290

bamboozled wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To solve all this, it's pretty simple," I feel if it was simple it would be fixed?

Something can be very simple, and still be very hard to achieve because of resistance to it.

Which is why I don't think it's very simple, you have to convince a lot of powerful people they should pay more tax to achieve said goal, that's not easy.

Re: Are super-rich people just better at making money?

#310

Post by danaris » Thu, Dec 22, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

piva00 wrote: post #273

imgabe wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all industries that are heavily regulated and/or subsidized by the government. I’m not saying the free market is the perfect answer to everything, but none of those are a free market.

That's a No True Scotsman, by that definition there simply isn't free market at all in the world. Every product and service has regulations on how/what can be sold...

"Free market" has an actual definition.

And no. There is not, in fact, a truly "free market" in the world, in the sense that people frequently talk about in terms of "the free market will solve XYZ". Because it's an idealized abstraction used to talk about the theory and philosophy of market economics.

I don't claim to be deeply conversant with the theory, but I do know that a truly free market requires:

1. Commoditization: The products or services need to be effectively interchangeable, aside from features and price on which different vendors can compete

2. Perfect information: The buyers and sellers all need to be perfectly informed about all aspects of the products or services (including things like, "was this made with slave labour?")

3. Unconstrained ability to choose: The buyers must have no constraints on their choice beyond those actively under competition—they can't, for instance, be lying on a gurney with their appendix rupturing while deciding which hospital to give their "business" to. They also can't be so hungry that they must buy food now or risk starvation, or under such tight financial constraints that they must choose the very cheapest option or risk destitution.

If a given market does not exhibit even one of these characteristics, it cannot be considered a "free market" of the type we should expect to arrive at the ideal distribution of resources.