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

351–360 of 606 posts

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

#351

Post by datadeft »

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…

The peasant had to pay 20% tax and had free housing and food and worked half the amount of hours / year that we work. And they got revolutions. What does it tell about us?

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

#353

Post by anal_reactor »

wolvesechoes wrote: post #264
zuppy wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, my mother and my grandfather participated in the Romanian revolution, where real bullets have being shot against the people. I was almost 8 years old and I will be forever grateful for what they did. There is no other way, there is nobody else to help you if you accept what is happening. It's not on the same level, of course, but my anecdotal experience does not align with what you said. You can't fight lawless…

Obviously when I use universal quantifiers, even implicitly, it is easy to find counterexamples. Of course there are individuals that are willing to sacrifice even when old. But don't you think that your (grand)parents may have been more motivated due to having children and grandchildren? Now, why an old, childless lady or man, living on pension, would take risks, especially when they lived their life watching things…

I was thinking about this and honestly, I would be more willing to take action exactly if I were old, simply because I'd have less to lose. Sucks to get life sentece at 20, doesn't change much when you're 80.

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

#354

Post by peppers-ghost »

martindbp wrote: post #320
peppers-ghost wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's China's Marxist-Leninist society working out right now? Last I checked their economy was on pace to grow larger than the US.

You think China's economy runs on Marxist-Leninist ideas? It's capitalism with authoritarian characteristics.

China's economy is more state owned than not. The private market is strictly controlled with socialist ideology. The difference between Chinese markets and liberal markets is that the state there controls the capitalists, in the US the capitalists control the state.

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

#355

Post by rho4 »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #97
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…

Global average age is higher than it has ever been and it keeps climbing. My stupid take is, we will continuously live in unprecedented territories for the foreseeable future, because needs, wants, abilities, thinking style of humans change as they age.

interesting take, resonates strongly with my own experience. my views changed a lot from my naive idealistic teen years.

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

#356

Post by aktenlage »

Gasp0de wrote: post #269
pjc50 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? How long has it been since you checked what income percentile you are in? I would expect most of the posters here to be in the top 5%, with a short tail of unemployed and retirees. The number of Americans with passports is at an all time high of 48%, and some of that is simply for convenience ID for internal flights.

My partner and I are in the top 20-25% of Germany (looking at combined household income, we earn about the same). Not poor, but not (very) rich as well.

Note that income is not the definition of rich. It's just it's derivative. You may earn well, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean you possess much. Most wealth is inherited nowadays.

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

#357

Post by wiseowise »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #94
wiseowise wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Guhuh just fununcially aducate urself” Do they teach in school how to invest when you can barely afford food and have no disposable income? Must be easy to talk shit when sitting on your cushy white collar job. Stop simping for billionaires, it’s pathetic.

If you read the article you would see that every bracket has some disposable income. The middle 60% (which isn’t the top 10% from the headline) spends more than $1000 a year on vacation. Cut that in half and invest $500 a year into the market and you would have a few hundred thousand for retirement (way more than typical retirement savings). Also, in response to these… > “Guhuh just fununcially aducate urself” > Must…

> The middle 60% (which isn’t the top 10% from the headline) spends more than $1000 a year on vacation. Cut that in half and invest $500 a year into the market and you would have a few hundred thousand for retirement (way more than typical retirement savings).

So middle 60% must slave away their whole life and save for retirement while 10% live their life to the fullest? $1000 isn’t even a spec on billionaire’s radar while for someone it represents a whole year of work to spend a day of rest from this dystopia.

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

#358

Post by graemep »

mirekrusin wrote: post #235
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…

We are living in feudal system at the moment. Amazon, cloud providers and everything seems to be subscription based nowadays - as Yanis Varoufakis calls it "techno-feudalism". We have system which funnels unimaginable amounts of money to few overlords, it'll keep reinforcing itself creating more and more contrast with time. Open source everything seems to be the only answer if you ask me.

People do not understand subscriptions. I little a month looks cheap. They do not understand the technology or the economics.

If you are a landless peasant you know if you are being too heavily taxes - you can see how much the land produces. People have no idea whether they are overpaying for food at the end of a long supply chain, let alone for technology.

Another factor is when you are paying for many things, its only worth worrying about the most expensive as the others are relatively trivial. Compared to housing and utilities the rest is hardly worth thinking about.

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

#359

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

jonplackett wrote: post #217
wqaatwt wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> certainly not dumb Perhaps but IMHO it’s a very high risk strategy and I doubt it’s necessarily optimal if more wealth is his primary goal (as opposed to his other seemingly highly megalomaniacal ambitions..) So far his actions haven’t really been that beneficial for Tesla (of course its sales growth might have significantly slowed down even if he stayed out of politics). SpaceX can only make that much even if it g…

When you’re that rich you aren’t motivated by more money. He’s motivated by power, and the fear of power being taken away.

That doesn't seem likely to me as I don't see how someone can get to be that rich without being incredibly motivated by more money. Surely a normal person would get a few million and decide that they had more money than they'd ever need?

But yes, likely motivated by power too.

Post reply on HN