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

361–370 of 606 posts

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

#361

Post by chii »

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…

> they will want change by force

at no time has there been a good outcome from which this change made.

The people who applied the force merely swapped with those who had wealth. Essentially, they wanted the wealth, and co-opted the masses to enable themselves.

What we have today is relatively good. Just because you see some billionaire who have more yachts than you could ever hope to own, doesn't mean you aren't living a good life. At least the french revolution was in part about lack of food and starvation. I dont see america starving.

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

#362

Post by scarface_74 »

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…

Well they may want change by force. But the rich make sure that they have people with weapons that are pacified.

And in the case of the US, you have people who willingly vote against their interest by demonizing other groups.

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

#363

Post by insane_dreamer »

chii wrote: post #361
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…

> they will want change by force at no time has there been a good outcome from which this change made. The people who applied the force merely swapped with those who had wealth. Essentially, they wanted the wealth, and co-opted the masses to enable themselves. What we have today is relatively good. Just because you see some billionaire who have more yachts than you could ever hope to own, doesn't mean you aren't livi…

> doesn't mean you aren't living a good life.

unless you're in the bottom 50%

> I dont see america starving.

True, but starvation is a pretty low bar; obesity and all the related health problems due to an unhealthy diet (because garbage is the cheapest food and what the bottom 50% can afford in the US) is the modern version of starvation

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

#364

Post by pzo »

hagbarth wrote: post #211
newbie578 wrote: post #119

As a person born in the middle class, I am quite sad to see it's extinction in realtime. Not sure what is the solution to this.

Higher top marginal income tax rate (was much higher in the 50s, 60s, 70s). Higher capital gains tax. And then use the income from that to distribute wealth through things like single payer health care, affordable housing etc. So the basic needed expenses don't take up such a large portion of the budget for middle income households. Also: stronger unions.

The problem is that this would have be to incorporated worldwide wise. Otherwise will capital first run to different cheaper state or different (tax paradise) country. I'm also not sure if alone would solve the problem.

IMHO we would have to probably have small tax on revenue rather than profit - so only something similar to VAT but smaller and without deduction. VAT seems the most honest tax since you pay it only for what you buy. Also maybe property tax but with cumulative different tax brackets (0 tax for first property). 50% average yearly rental tax for each property that is being empty more than 3 months a year - just to discourage and deflate real estate bubble.

Eventually we probably need overproduction for goods at the bottom of maslov piramid: shelter, energy, food, water, transportation. Robotics revolution maybe is some hope.

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

#365

Post by FL33TW00D »

nthingtohide wrote: post #294
Epa095 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you manage that!?! It was my impression that increasing housing prices is a problem all over, and that it partially stems from the mega trend of people moving to cities. Most countries have a lot of room to build houses, just not where people want to live! So why is it different in Finland? Is there a lot of free space around then cities? Or doesn't everyone want to live in Helsinki?

The home crisis can be solved if we insist that people can buy property only for living and not as an investment. Chinese are buying homes in Canada which is the reason for housing crisis there.

Why not just construct more homes?

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

#366

Post by jstummbillig »

submeta wrote: post #352

- Total Global Wealth: $454 trillion - Annual Global GDP: $105 trillion - Cost to Feed Everyone for a Year: $10 trillion The issue is not a lack of money but rather distribution, logistics, and political will.

Hm, half-agree. Distribution and logistics and political will are a challenge. But so is lack of abundance (because that is part of what makes the other parts challenging).

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

#368

Post by chii »

jgilias wrote: post #274
ThinkBeat wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revolutions can happen if enough people show up. Massive amounts of people are difficult to deal with. Smaller groups you can outright kill in daylight, but better to get to them first to torture and kill them out of sight. Once you need to kill 500.000 who are protesting and if violence to quell the hoards wakes up more people who want to see the regime fail.

The people of Belarus put this to test not that long ago. Massive numbers of people came out, factories went on strike, even people from the military and police spoke out against the regime. Turned out that in this day and age when the governments have unprecedented powers of surveillance and the ability to cut anyone from the respective financial system, a revolution is a really hard thing to pull off. If the Britis…

> the ability to cut anyone from the respective financial system

not only that, but to sniff out those with whom they transacted. This causes a chilling effect, because secondary sanctions cause just as much harm.

It's also why i am against removal of cash based, anonymous transactions. It is needed, so that the state cannot cut off citizens at their whim.

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

#369

Post by potato3732842 »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #76
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 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…

>George Washington...

Literally all the founding fathers stood to be wealthier by getting the colonies to work with Britain than against it. Like, this is basic fucking math. Dragging armies across the economy you do business in with the end result being you are on your own and can no longer rely on the dominant economic power for protection and trade agreements and whatnot is not how you get fabulously rich if you are already starting from "not peasant".

If you want to look at them through an economic lens the right one to choose is "the founding fathers were rich enough that they knew that even if revolution was bad on a macro level they'd still be filthy rich and wouldn't starve"

>But the poor will not benefit this time either. When things get bad for average people, it's just an opportunity for other rich guys to take the reigns.

I think you need to look at more revolutions. What tends to happen is a shuffling of the people who are already on top and the "HN class" of high end professionals, academics, media personalities, business leaders and other "peasants who are critical to the system" wind up in the gulags or losing their heads because the "fungible peasants" are pissed off at them for really squeezing out every penny until the system collapsed.

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

#370

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

datadeft wrote: post #351
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?

> worked half the amount of hours / year that we work

Source? I have some doubts about this claim. Are you sure this doesn't simply measure one form of labor while ignoring another?

Post reply on HN