Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#91

Post by icefox »

mikeash wrote: post #20
dollar wrote: post #3

Who cares about socialist propaganda like this? There is no evidence that "equality" in the distribution of wealth is good for middle class and low income persons. For example, if the distribution were more equal on a relative basis, but all brackets had less money than before, is that supposed to be an improvement?

Wealth means power. Let's take an extreme case: every person in the world has their wealth increased by 10% over what they have today, except for one person who has his wealth increased by $1 quadrillion. Everybody is better off, right? Except that wealthy person is going to rule the world, and stack the deck to help himself, and there's nothing that says he's only going to do it in such a way that everybody else kee…

Of course you have also have many billionaires that contribute to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#92

Post by nommm-nommm »

lsniddy wrote: post #67
specialist wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who work hard and contribute to the economy "Economy" is the measurement of the movement of money. Rich people hoarding money slows the movement, thereby slows the economy. Any one wanting to help the economy would logically oppose the ever growing inequity.

I know zero rich people who "hoard" money, and the ones who become richer tend to be the best at redistributing their cash faster.

This is from the Nick Hanauer article I posted above:

"We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators. It’s simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but I don’t buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my “manager pants.” I guess I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money away in savings, where it doesn’t do the country much good."

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#93

Post by Diamons »

vlehto wrote: post #29
Diamons wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wealth distribution is remarkably skewed. Today it might not mean anything but give it a few years of people having no money yet having bills, loans, mortgages, etc. to pay with no possibility of retirement and you have yourself a prime situation for another French revolution or oppressive police state. It's not something that you can just let sit, it's going to get bloody if it is not addressed soon. We have see…

It wont happen. Both parties are just waiting for the right price to buy those votes. Democracy exists for stability on national and international levels. Everything else is just a side effect.

Everyone thinks that until it's too late.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#94

Post by vlehto »

Diamons wrote: post #93
vlehto wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wont happen. Both parties are just waiting for the right price to buy those votes. Democracy exists for stability on national and international levels. Everything else is just a side effect.

Everyone thinks that until it's too late.

Has democratic nation ever been overruled by the people? Or even the poor part of the people?

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#95

Post by afsina »

fsloth wrote: post #88
afsina wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think there is a sweet spot, or better to say you cannot stop in the sweet spot. Once you start redistribution, it never stops growing. Governments use social welfare as a bribe for votes. Every election new and larger benefits are introduced to overcome the overly generous competition. Taxes goes higher with different forms. Government hires more and more people. The more nationalization you make the more t…

"Once you start..." I don't think there is any civilized government that does not perform redistribution. Taxes are a form of redistribution. Any government functions such as free schooling, are a one way to redistribute the wealth back to society.

My claim is that all governments tend to grow by social means and populism. This may be slow or fast. After a point, prosperity disappears and slowly impoverishment starts.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#97

Post by fsloth »

afsina wrote: post #95
fsloth wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Once you start..." I don't think there is any civilized government that does not perform redistribution. Taxes are a form of redistribution. Any government functions such as free schooling, are a one way to redistribute the wealth back to society.

My claim is that all governments tend to grow by social means and populism. This may be slow or fast. After a point, prosperity disappears and slowly impoverishment starts.

This sounds to me as an overestimatation of populism as a political force against against defenders of vested inteterests and capital.

Political institutions can and do decay but not all of them so this is not a general rule. As an example, Britain, Sweden, Switzerland have quite old governmemts and they are among the most prosperous countries in the world. When speaking of redistribution of wealth sweden has taken it as far as it can in economic terms and they seem to be going strong ahead - it seems they balance social and business needs quite well.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#98

Post by sp332 »

themetrician wrote: post #46

In other news: Top 1% singers better than the remaining 99%. Top 1% sprinters better than the remaining 99%. Top 1% producers better than the remaining 99%. Where's the surprise here? It's a variation of Sturgeon's Law. EDIT: the top 1% of wealthy americans are better producers than everyone else, yes. They are not better people than everyone else, no. How is this so hard to understand to HN-level people?

I don't think you read the stats right to be honest. The top 1% of producers aren't better than the other 99% combined.

And another point: I don't think all of Sam Walton's kids are even in the top 1% of producers even though they are at the very tip-top of wealth owners.

And the top 1% of owners don't have the same wealth as the other 99% in other countries, or even in this country in the past. It's not a normal thing at all.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#99

Post by mikeash »

icefox wrote: post #91
mikeash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth means power. Let's take an extreme case: every person in the world has their wealth increased by 10% over what they have today, except for one person who has his wealth increased by $1 quadrillion. Everybody is better off, right? Except that wealthy person is going to rule the world, and stack the deck to help himself, and there's nothing that says he's only going to do it in such a way that everybody else kee…

Of course you have also have many billionaires that contribute to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Many powerful people use their power for good, but that doesn't make me want them to rule the world.

Re: Top 1% now owns more of the wealth than the remaining 99%

#100

Post by mikeash »

gozo wrote: post #72
mikeash wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I believe you're correct. Holy crap is that a terrible way to put it. I wouldn't call "excluding debt" confusing, but just outright wrong. Unless this is one of those dialect things that means something different to the Brits?

More of an accounting/finance thing, similar to how net price is price excluding tax, net wealth is wealth (assets) excluding debt (loans/liabilities).

I'm not sure if that helps, because here in the US "price" is by default listed before taxes! I would read "net price is price excluding tax" as "net price is price, ignoring taxes," and thus "net wealth is wealth, ignoring debt."
Post reply on HN