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

421–430 of 606 posts

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

#421

Post by phkx »

ken47 wrote: post #304
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…

Not saying that the ultra-wealthy have the right to be tyrants, but "peasants" of today's age have a quality of life that is orders of magnitudes better than peasants in the feudal age. This simple truth seems to get lost so easily when talking about inequality in a vacuum.

Then we might have reached the point to discuss whether it’s enough to lift the worst-off to some minimum where they can survive or whether we’re in a position now to also enable participation on broad scale.

Right now it looks like wealth is self-enforcing. Across certain thresholds, you can get an expert or have the network to help with your taxes, legal issues, investment strategy and so on. Maybe you even inherited it all from your parents. There are certainly prominent counter examples of people who crossed these thresholds with their own hard work. The majority of people does not.

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

#422

Post by fxwin »

tfourb wrote: post #416
fxwin wrote: post #175

In any kind of non-uniform distribution of any good, the top x % will always own a disproportionate (wrt to headcount) amount of it (In economic systems, this mathematical fact is further amplified by other factors such as financial literacy and leverage). What's always missing to me in these types of discussions is what this value should be at, and what the distribution should look like qualitatively (i.e. what shou…

The most in-depth historical and empirical analysis of wealth inequality that I know of was done by Picketty et al. He is quite famous, so you can easily google his main research findings. The upshot is that wealth inequality is above or close to historical high points and that it has actual and severe real world negative consequences.

Thanks!

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

#423

Post by sigmoid10 »

matwood wrote: post #396
sigmoid10 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it actually does come to a new civil war, my money is still on whoever owns most of the military. Small arms are nice and well, but they don't help you a lot when the other guy has got APCs and tanks.

I think it would be an open question as to which side ends up owning most of the military. Bases are all over the US along with national guard. The people in the military are also a pretty diverse group. In a civil war situation I don’t think it would be an automatic siding with DC.

One of the reasons the military has so many independent branches is that it would take all of them to rebel and join the opposing side in order to win. It's impossible to tell how they would side in a real internal conflict and the whole apparatus probably has to break down first before they will ever officially take sides of a force that opposes the federal government. At that point there will be total chaos and the wealthiest people can once again swoop in, amass the most powerful force and take over.

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

#424

Post by serallak »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #415
serallak wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Is that true ? As far as I am aware, the money the French Government alone loaned to the US during the revolutionary war (at least two million dollars[0]) far exceeded the value of Washington personal wealth (estimated at $780,000 in 1799 [1], so at the time of his death…

Your source says that it depends on how you look at it. See the similar discussion regarding Iraq war spending in the other comments. But it is also totally irrelevant, because the point is that Washington was one of the richest people in America before the war started and even richer when he died. There is no doubt about that.

I'm not doubting that Washington was very very rich.

I'm doubting the different and very specific claim that "George Washington could have financed the entire Revolutionary War" with just a third of his wealth.

To me, the math simply does not add up. I suppose it can be chalked up to hyperbole ?

I also don't see how a discussion of the Iraq war could be relevant to that claim ...

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

#425

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #359
jonplackett wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Money and power are the same thing.

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

#426

Post by lnsru »

flr03 wrote: post #291
lnsru wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t there any sane systems in between?

Maybe something Keynesian

Thanks. That was interesting discovery. Including the New Keynesian theory. However I assume now, that rational expectations do not work and the actors can be bribed. Bribed for example for selling government owned housing to private corporation. It will squeeze the tenants for profit and will do nothing to increase housing supply. Rational actor becomes selfish actor and does everything for itself. The bottom 90% get worst possible ending.

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

#427

Post by Gasp0de »

sprainedankles wrote: post #418
Gasp0de wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I didn't know that! In Germany, everyone get's at least 4 weeks of PTO, most jobs get 6 weeks off.

My first job (2018) provided 2 weeks of PTO, with an increase to 3 weeks expected after _five_ years. Folks in the U.S. can't quite comprehend having more than that (or any at all, depending on the job). I am very grateful for my current company's "unlimited" PTO policy, it's life-changing.

How unlimited is it, really? How much do people take off in reality? I dislike these "benefits" that no one then dares to use in reality. We have 6 weeks off, and you are literally forced to take them. This basically prevents social norms from putting pressure on people to not go on holidays as much or not during certain times.

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

#428

Post by ahaferburg »

pembrook wrote: post #287

Any system that allows humans agency will end up with a Pareto-style distribution in that thing (non-linear). Doesn’t matter if it’s wealth, HN upvotes, Crime, Traffic accidents, Productivity, Tetris scores, academic papers published, etc. As for the slight drift in US wealth distribution since 1980, it’s wholly explained by the change in age demographics. Since 1980 we’ve gone from a nation of people 30 years old to…

It's not a slight drift, it's a massive change since the 1950's.

Looking at averages is completely irrelevant when talking about inequality.

Here's a video from 12 years ago: Wealth Inequality in America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

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

#429

Post by sigmoid10 »

mihaic wrote: post #411
sigmoid10 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can see almost the same argument being made in 1780 in a French salon, after the cost of fielding armies had exploded in the seven year war.

Because it's literally the same basic concept. The fall of the French monarchy and the eventual rise of Napoleon followed the exact same principles: Rich people born into nobility using their military influence and public dissent to overthrow a government and establish themselves as new rulers. The biggest difference here is that Napoleon came from a more modest form of nobility by comparison and was an actual military genius who rose from a low-end officer all the way to the top because of his skills on the battlefield (at least until his success went to his head and he crowned himself emperor). But he wouldn't have gotten anywhere without his soldiers.

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

#430

Post by fancyfredbot »

jonplackett wrote: post #210

This guys has been saying this for ages https://m.youtube.com/garyseconomics

I really enjoy Gary Stevenson - both his YouTube channel and his book - but his very convincing message that wealth inequality is a problem isn't really accompanied by any particularly good solutions. Tax the wealthy yes, but how do you do it exactly? How much does it raise? How should the revenue be spent?
Post reply on HN