Live data from Hacker News

America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

time.com

651–660 of 961 posts

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#651

One of the things that ruffles my feathers about this genre of made-for-mass-consumption clap-trap is this sort of proclamation: > Other nations are suffering less from COVID-19 because they made better choices Which other nations? As someone who regularly reads francophone european news, I can assure you it isn't any nation in Europe. OP goes on to cite minimum wage, overtime pay, state-funded healthcare/childcare/e…

Presumably the "other nations" are the tiny island nations (New Zealand, Singapore) who implemented extremely strict measures to re-open sooner.

An extremely unfair comparison, in my opinion, considering the population difference, physical location, and trade obligations of the US and other countries in the EU.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming the fed is a common libertarian tactic to avoid blaming the capitalists. Oh yes, in a pure anarchocapitalist Austrian utopia, you'd never have capitalists paying workers shit wages, employing child labor, forcing workers into unsafe firetrap buildings, etc It's a way of averting ye eyes from the real problems with the negative externalities and market failures, and the hard work to come up with policy solutio…

As opposed to having the government do what? Have a great COVID response? Have a coherent industrial policy? Have great fiscal management? Have financial integrity? Grant monopolies to service provides (ahem Comcast) instead of building proper infrastructure? Not building sufficient electrical infrastructure? Enticing poor young people to make terrible money decisions relative to school and then saddling them with no…

> Moderna created a vaccine in less than a day.

Moderna benefited immensely from decades of publicly funded research as does most of Pharma, as well as direct aid from Emory University, NIAID, etc

Look, if you believe the market works as the best mechanism for allocating goods and services, then you've also got to believe it won't work properly if prices are distorted, otherwise Garbage In, Garbage Out.

If a firm is able to pass off costs onto others, it is a hidden subsidy, a form of market distortion. For example, if I just throw all of my trash and waste into the local lake and hope no one notices, I don't pay the costs for my waste, ergo, my prices and my profits do not reflect the true marginal cost.

"But but but...tort! You can sue if injured by dumping!" Get real, this is a libertarian fantasy and not at all how diffuse stochastic waste works. The same people who tell me that what makes a poison, poison, is the dosage, not the molecule. Well, if you dump an insignificant fraction of pollutant, by itself, it is not harmful, but if 1000 firms dump the same amount, then it can be harmful. Who do you sue?

Property rights only work if you can draw a border around something. There are no property rights to the atmosphere or oceans and hence civil lawsuits can't really be a solution to tracking down and punishing individual violators after they've done the damage, the government must force firms to PRICE IN the costs of pollution, either via an upfront regulation, or an upfront tax.

The same is true for negative social externalities. If a firm, or a new technology, is having a large scale negative effect on society, making people less unhappy, more depressed, more prone to crime or violence, more impoverished, it becomes a cost that is passed off on everyone else.

Who pays the costs? We all do. We pay it at the hospital. We pay for it to the tune of $44,000/yr to house prison inmates. We pay for it in more police and criminal justice, more fear, more suicides.

If your company movies into a small town, puts all of the local shops out of business, and then refuses to raise wages or benefits, what ends up happening is, the other citizens end up paying for the healthcare, retirement, or other benefits that the Walmart, et al, aren't paying.

Acting like we don't live in an interconnected system where negative costs get transferred, or that every deal is win-win-win, is a fantasy. If you don't pay for your neighbor's kids nutrition, early education, or healthcare, you'll pay for police to lock up their kids when they try to rob you.

I'd much rather live in a society where I am "forced" to pay for educated, civilized, happy people to be around, then to live inside of a Fortress, "forced" paying for a bunch of private prisons in a police state, just so I can view the misery of the world from my tower windows.

So if you really believe capitalism is the best system for allocating resources, you should be in favor of correcting market distortions where firms can cost-shift their damages onto others, especially when it comes to diffuse-in-time-and-space mechanisms where there is no easily visible negative feedback mechanism to correct the firm's behavior.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#653

One of the things that ruffles my feathers about this genre of made-for-mass-consumption clap-trap is this sort of proclamation: > Other nations are suffering less from COVID-19 because they made better choices Which other nations? As someone who regularly reads francophone european news, I can assure you it isn't any nation in Europe. OP goes on to cite minimum wage, overtime pay, state-funded healthcare/childcare/e…

Presumably the "other nations" are the tiny island nations (New Zealand, Singapore) who implemented extremely strict measures to re-open sooner. An extremely unfair comparison, in my opinion, considering the population difference, physical location, and trade obligations of the US and other countries in the EU.

My thoughts exactly.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#654

Correction: The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%. When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. Most importantly, when the Fed decides to print money ad nauseam, they create massive asset inflation, which steals from the poor and gives to the rich. T…

> The Fed's policies have taken $50T of wealth from the Bottom 90%. When you bail out irresponsibly over-leveraged and nearly bankrupted banks and corporations, and pay for those bailouts with tax-payer money, you steal from the poor and give to the rich. But...the Fed doesn't do that. Taxpayer funded [0] bailouts come from Congress’ executed by the Treasury, not the Fed. Fed operations don't come out of tax funds ex…

I think he means that the Fed can directly and indirectly increase the money supply, which disproportionately benefits people and corporations leveraged into assets. Hence, increasing the money supply makes the rich even richer.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#655

One of the things that ruffles my feathers about this genre of made-for-mass-consumption clap-trap is this sort of proclamation: > Other nations are suffering less from COVID-19 because they made better choices Which other nations? As someone who regularly reads francophone european news, I can assure you it isn't any nation in Europe. OP goes on to cite minimum wage, overtime pay, state-funded healthcare/childcare/e…

Presumably the "other nations" are the tiny island nations (New Zealand, Singapore) who implemented extremely strict measures to re-open sooner. An extremely unfair comparison, in my opinion, considering the population difference, physical location, and trade obligations of the US and other countries in the EU.

Is Australia a "tiny island nation"?

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#656
post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I am fairly pro market but read enough mainstream economics to know that government paper retaining value more than private assets is much more of a distortion than said paper gradually losing value towards its intrinsic value of nothing. The thing is, stable money that predictably loses value is a great thing to have for the economy as it allows people to negotiate contracts and conduct business in a predict…

I think I follow this, but isn’t owning say an index fund just another IOU, itself made up of smaller IOU’s? And isn’t that the main way normal people’s savings can be tied to “real stuff?”

Stocks are also IOUs on a certain level but they are not far removed from a real productive assets creating real value (the company that the stock gives you ownership of). Things can get speculative with stocks too, though usually far less than in the cryptocoin realm.

If you add up all the IOUs in the economy, financial assets are cancelled by financial liabilities and what remains is real stuff which in economics is called "investment". The nomenclature can be a bit confusing because in finance they use the same word to mean the contract, the claim or the IOU not the physical asset.

The equation for GDP is Consumption plus Investment (sometimes government consumption and investment and exports are broken out). Investment is not financial assets or money or bonds which all cancel out at the global level. Investment means factories built, equipment built, less tangible things like knowledge and intellectual property count too in theory but are sometimes hard to measure. It's important to have a good level of investment. Promise hoarding can crowd it out when things get too speculative. The economy can get into a bad Nash equilibrium where people are chasing IOUs instead of producing real value.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#657

One of the things that ruffles my feathers about this genre of made-for-mass-consumption clap-trap is this sort of proclamation: > Other nations are suffering less from COVID-19 because they made better choices Which other nations? As someone who regularly reads francophone european news, I can assure you it isn't any nation in Europe. OP goes on to cite minimum wage, overtime pay, state-funded healthcare/childcare/e…

Canada is probably the most apt comparison here. They have about 4x less coronavirus cases per capita [source](https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToS...)

IMO, a lot of this had to do with the federal response and cohesive messaging they provided. It wasn't perfect, but they at least took action with things like CERB payments, enforced travel quarantines, etc.

On the other hand, the US is way ahead on vaccinations (due to, I would guess, them being developed in country). It does seem like a very US outcome to solve problems with technology and private enterprise in the face of government ineptitude.

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#658

One of the things that ruffles my feathers about this genre of made-for-mass-consumption clap-trap is this sort of proclamation: > Other nations are suffering less from COVID-19 because they made better choices Which other nations? As someone who regularly reads francophone european news, I can assure you it isn't any nation in Europe. OP goes on to cite minimum wage, overtime pay, state-funded healthcare/childcare/e…

Presumably the "other nations" are the tiny island nations (New Zealand, Singapore) who implemented extremely strict measures to re-open sooner. An extremely unfair comparison, in my opinion, considering the population difference, physical location, and trade obligations of the US and other countries in the EU.

Vietnam is a better example. A country of 95 million people sharing a land border with others, but they’ve had just 35 reported covid deaths in total.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/vietnams-showcase-covid...

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#659
post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why bring politics into this? Most of my economically clueless friends are liberals who only watch CNN and read NYT. Economic Ignorance is widespread and bipartisan.

I don't see any political implication. He singled out Fox news because that is what his family watches.

Really? "... and many people's only news source"

Re: America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%

#660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always found this graph enlightening, but strictly on its face: https://fee.org/media/17509/prices2-1.png?width=645&height=6... I don't agree with the argument FEE is trying to make: "Consider each product or service shown. College is heavily subsidized, regulated, and exclusionary, and the costs are soaring. The textbook industry is hobbled by extreme copyright regulation, and can depend on captive buyers. Childca…

The things that have seen large price increases are things that aren't scalable i.e. they still require the same amount of human input labor to produce Childcare is constrained by the fact that each childcare worker by law (for better or worse) can only look after so many children at once. This ratio varies by state but it's usually around 4 children per childcare worker. The result is that it has to be expensive bec…

I find it difficult to believe that the increase in university costs is significantly driven by increases in labor cost for the jobs actually related to delivering a university education. If anything I suspect there have been a significant decrease in the number of university employee-hours per student-credit-hour.
Post reply on HN