Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030 • Hacker News Board

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#361

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #167

zaroth wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so much hoarded as invested. Warren Buffet primarily keeps his money in BerkHa stock, which itself puts its money to work employing nearly half a million people. If the wealthiest 1% had their assets wiped out tomorrow, most of us wouldn’t have a job the next day.

Define "wiped out". If the wealth were simply redistributed, for example the ownership of the companies transferred to the employees, no jobs would be lost. Not that I am an advocate of that.

[deleted]

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#362

Post by ericd » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #358

ericd wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do all the workers who have 401k plans composed of shares of all the public companies in the US fit?

I think there were other classes than just capital and prole, for example the Kulaks. So blue collar workers with enough wealth to participate in the capital market but not enough to take it easy forever would probably be some other class. Maybe "middle," class: something which was very small and weak in every country that turned communist.

Weren't the Kulaks essentially massacred?

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#363

Post by therealdrag0 » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 12:15 AM UTC

psyc wrote: post #127

tdmule wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.

I believe we are going to find it increasingly essential to view corporations as a second government that has a particular relationship with the nominal one.

This podcast, about workers rights and how companies are basically private governments, is really interesting: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/02/elizabeth_ander.htm...

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#364

Post by throwaway84742 » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 9:45 AM UTC

PrimHelios wrote: post #345

throwaway84742 wrote: post #63

Worldwide, if you make over $32k per year you’re 1%. I suggest folks think carefully about this fact before suggesting hanging the rich or anything else Marxist-Leninist. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/05061...

Get the fuck outta here with your strawmen.

I think you meant to say “strawpeople”. :-) But seriously, take a look at the Russian or Chinese revolution, and see who, predominantly, ended up in a ditch with a bullet in their head. In the case of Russia it was people who had barely above average wealth (successful farmers, small scale bourgeois, intelligentsia). In other words likely people like you.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#365

Post by PrimHelios » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC

throwaway84742 wrote: post #364

PrimHelios wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get the fuck outta here with your strawmen.

I think you meant to say “strawpeople”. :-) But seriously, take a look at the Russian or Chinese revolution, and see who, predominantly, ended up in a ditch with a bullet in their head. In the case of Russia it was people who had barely above average wealth (successful farmers, small scale bourgeois, intelligentsia). In other words likely people like you.

Learn to argue without fallacies.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#366

Post by collyw » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC

verylittlemeat wrote: post #346

collyw wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was you who called them "selfish idiots" not me. I know exactly what giving birth means.

>why would you want to bring a child into the world knowing the amount of suffering that its is likely to live through? This statement is all but calling them selfish idiots. Your question is nothing but a self serving rhetorical for conclusions you already made.

No its not. A lack of thought is closer to what I was thinking. It takes a lot of effort raising a child, especially in poverty. I don't think of that as selfish.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#367

Post by cma » Sun, Apr 15, 2018, 9:48 AM UTC

jblow wrote: post #350

maoistinquisitr wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a fan of Obama but one good thing he was doing towards the end was cracking down on fraudulent "higher education" programs milking students and the taxpayer. He was deliberately choking off the loan subsidy fraud game. Unfortunately, Trump immediately resumed the Bush policy of pumping up the student debt for worthless degrees bubble.

But that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that the legitimate schools have been able to raise their prices tremendously because the students have all this easy money given to them for just that purpose.

Tongue in cheek it can't help that people take advantage of states by getting cheap state subsidized tuition and then flee to low tax states when it pays off.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#368

Post by iguy » Sun, Apr 15, 2018, 11:25 AM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #356

iguy wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you claiming that there was starvation in the 19th C depressions, England / USA? This would be news historians. Besides differences in government response, the other big difference was that employment had become more secure, more long-term, more Henry Ford and less Charles Dickens. You could indeed argue that this made it more serious. Compare a 20% drop in employment which meant 4 days a week for everyone (becau…

> Are you claiming that there was starvation in the 19th C depressions I am not claiming nothing of this. But everyone knows the huge toil of the great depression on poor workers. The only reason why the new deal was enacted is that people were on the verge of revolt. If the recession had been any worse, there would be blood on the streets and even more people would starve to death, and possibly the US government wou…

Oh I don't doubt that the new deal was politically a good idea. Blood on the streets is bad for one's re-election prospects. And communist overthrows certainly produce lots of blood.

I'm just dubious of claims that it was economically a great idea, especially in the long run. This seems to be unclear from the data, looking back from a safe distance.