7 ms·

HN tends to be extremely reactionary to posts like this. Perhaps because the tech/startup scene is all about getting rich quick, or perhaps because HN has come

by adwhit 10y ago

HN tends to be extremely reactionary to posts like this. Perhaps because the tech/startup scene is all about getting rich quick, or perhaps because HN has come to partially reflect the personal views of PG. There will be a reckoning. The world is 'unsustainably unequal' at the moment. There are huge problems on the horizon - superbugs, climate change, resource depletion, environmental degradation, overpopulation. These problems can only be solved when governments act in the interests of all of humankind. This will not happen when the 1% hold all the money and all the power (which is the same thing). I hope we can reign in the rentiering, tax-avoiding, propaganda-publishing rich and reclaim democracy before Something Bad happens. Otherwise, when the SHTF, the 1% will deservedly shoulder all the blame. And that will be the reckoning.

mbfg 10y ago
i understand your sentiment here, and in the view of history this is true. The problem is that now, or very soon, we are/will be in a state where the 1% can easily put down the 99% politically, socially, financially and yes militarily. So there may be a reckoning at some point. But it will and badly for the 99%. This was mostly true throughout history as well, it's just become a more certainty now.
- praptak 10y ago
  "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."
  - futureiswithus 10y ago
    We can boycott the rich. And when we cant, we can just choose to buy from the least rich
    - ommunist 10y ago
      Try. Boycot banks by giving them no money, maintain social lending in your local area, see what happen then.
    - khedoros 10y ago
      That sounds more like a theoretical solution than a practical one. You'd need to get most of the population to ignore short-term convenience and pay higher prices for things (optimizing for a different metric than lowest cost). I don't think that will happen.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    -French Nobles just before the revolution
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Just saw your comment. You beat me to it. Here's mine, though, which provides a key detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797166
- Joeri 10y ago
  100.000 british men simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate. Throughout history it has been the case that sustained perceived inequality inevitably leads to revolution. We're nowhere near that point, but if trend lines continue and the middle class gets wiped out, it will happen. Democracy is supposed to prevent things from getting that bad, but we have seen that free elections are easily manipulated when you control the money and the message people hear, which is why these presidential elections will once again be a vote for either of two pro-super-rich candidates. Ironically it is in the super-rich's best interest to raise taxes on themselves to stop this from getting out of hand.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Sure they can. Their weapon is the media instead of bullets. They just have to convince at least half of them the British policies benefit them. Plus provide them with guns. They'll shoot the other half for the British. Just like Democrat vs Republican politics and media in the U.S.. Nation can't win if it's divided and fighting each other over the actions of elites who they continue to fund and vote in. ;)
    - jonknee 10y ago
      ... And yet Gandhi was right. Those 100,000 British men failed and India is today the world's largest democracy.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        He was right and wrong. He was right that 100,000 British men couldn't use lead with obviously-bad situation to control India. He was wrong given small numbers of men used a careful combo of military, money, and media to control U.S., Britain, and India. Currently, India mainly serves as cheap labor to support money-making operations in U.S., Britain, and other countries. Gandhi was ultimately wrong: original exploitation was simply using tactics without psychological acceptance today's tactics have.
- jonknee 10y ago
  > The problem is that now, or very soon, we are/will be in a state where the 1% can easily put down the 99% politically, socially, financially and yes militarily. They don't seem to be doing so hot politically. The poor Koch brothers can't even buy a primary election anymore.
- foobarian 10y ago
  Moreover, it there ends up being a violent reckoning, the outcome will be the 1% will be swapped out for a different 1% which will likely be worse than they are now. E.g. military junta or a bunch of mobsters.
dnautics 10y ago
Why does government have to do something? Don't you suppose it's part of the problem? We have an economic system imposed on us that is unsustainable and redistributes from the poor to the wealthy in the name of economic stability, "growth" and "creating jobs" as if optimizing those metrics will necessarily be to the benefit of anyone but the top.
- smt88 10y ago
  If something has to be done on a large scale, government has to do it. Massive change has to be through a medium that is culpable and transparent. That is, in theory, a position only a government can or should hold. US government needs thorough reform, but the mechanism of change has to be a government in the end.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    Since when are governments "culpable and transparent"?
    - smt88 10y ago
      They aren't completely, but they are more so than private institutions can (or should) be. What alternative is there? Also, non-military portions of government in the US tend to be surprisingly transparent.
- themartorana 10y ago
  Because in the end, the "government" is the only thing maintaining some order. There is no civilization without it - and anyone that tells you differently just can't visualize where "government" exists in their example. When the rules of society get out of whack, government can either help solve the issue, or double down on bad policies. When they do the latter, they eventually become chapters in history books. Yes, certain (many) actors in government now are reinforcing the problems, but to solve many of them at scale, you need government to be involved, if not in charge.
  - 10y ago
marincounty 10y ago
If I was in the wealthy club, my biggest fear for myself, and my family would be one thing. "I hope we don't turn into Mexico, where if you have a few assets; you literally run the risk of kidnapping for ransom, etc." You couldn't give my enough money to worry about sitting in the park, or concerned if my kids are safe. Plus, what fun is it going on vacation, a function, a party, a nice dinner, when the rest of society is struggling? Another big drawback to wealth, you will never know if he/she loves you for you? You might think you know, but goodluck. And don't get me started on rich kids! It's like giving them a loaded gun? What's the point of all this wealth, if you need security, complex prenuptials, phoney friends, canieving family mebmers(middle, low class can be ruthless, immoral too.) I live near a few 1 percenter's and they don't have better emotional lives. They don't need to worry about money, but they have some retched worries; I would never want. (This op is falling a bit too quick? I just wonder sometimes? Censoring it will not make the sentiments go away?)
Mu37 10y ago
Western society/governments will start looking more and more like the Chinese I feel, cause western society hasn't found any serious alternate way of reigning in the 1%. It will most likely happen after the "something bad" stuff does.
- todd8 10y ago
  China has greater ratios of inequality than the US. See World Bank figures: http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.9 http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.9
  - anke_ 10y ago
    Which would support the hypothesis. Greater inequality greater the tendencies for authoritarian control. US inequality is on a increasing trajectory with nothing likely to stop it. So where else do we end up?
nickpsecurity 10y ago
The funny thing is that the leaked memos to the super-rich describe exactly those threats to their wealth and existence. http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutono...
CM30 10y ago
Yeah, and to some degree, this feeling is what a lot of reactionary and anti establishment parties are doing well off of at the moment. Growing inequality means that there's a lot of votes for political parties on the far left and right whose solution to this is basically 'destroy everything'. I suspect fears of this are also why 'identity politics' has become a scourge in the last few years or so. Why immigration is often used as the fear of the moment. Why so much of the media tries to paint people as bigots. Because things were getting quite bad against the 1% beforehand, with stuff like Occupy being a good example. Getting people to turn against each other over gender, race, personal hobbies and interests, religion and minor social differences diverts the anger to targets that don't threaten them.
vixen99 10y ago
For nth time can we please stop talking about 'tax-avoiding' as if it's something we should not do? Every sensible individual so arranges their affairs so as to avoid tax as much as possible within the law. Governments of whatever stripe set the tax rules. We citizens obey. Government is always free to change the rules to suit its tax raising objectives. Tax evasion is of course illegal. As UK Judge Lord Clyde stated 'No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue'
- adwhit 10y ago
  Can I lobby the government to change the law to lower my tax bill? No, I'm not wealthy enough. Top marginal income tax rates in the UK during the 60s were 98%.
  - todd8 10y ago
    The top marginal rates don't reflect what is actually paid in taxes. The tax laws are complex, very complex for high income people. Although the top marginal rates for individuals has come down dramatically from the highs of decades ago in the USA, the actual tax paid as a percentage of total income has gone up in the US for the top 10%. The USA has a very progressive tax system. The top 20% of earners in the USA make 51% of total US income(2014) and pay 84% of total US income tax. This data is pretty easy to find: OECD publications, see [1], WSJ see [2] [1] http://darp.lse.ac.uk/resources/books/GrowingUnequal_OECD.pdf http://darp.lse.ac.uk/resources/books/GrowingUnequal_OECD.pd... [2] http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384 http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-inco...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
narag 10y ago
I hope we can reign in the rentiering, tax-avoiding, propaganda-publishing rich and reclaim democracy before Something Bad happens. Frankly, I don't believe anything really bad happens to very rich people. A nice perk of becoming super-rich.
- y4mi 10y ago
  you must've missed your history lessons then. the mobs always went for them first and killed their hole families. it hasn't happend in over 100 years though and its likely that it won't happen again, as the rich can buy automated defense systems nowadays that could slaughter any amount of revolutionaries that come knocking on their doors
  - narag 10y ago
    When monarchy was hereditary, there was an obvious target. Now most rich persons are unknown out of a small circle. And they will take a jet to Switzerland or the Tropics. The power is outsourced to politicians.
mouzogu 10y ago
The problem is one of gross, immoral and unjustifiable inequality. Everything else is just semantics, conjecture and informed or misinformed opinion. I hope I live to see the day when the parasites of society meet their reckoning as I believe the idea of a more equal society coming about by reason as totally naive and foolhardy.
- aoeusnth1 10y ago
  So... let's kill all the greedy Jews that charge interest for their money lending? /s No thanks. I think a few reforms are enough to make things fair - a UBI, capital gains treated as normal income, and political funding reform. We don't need any more of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...
  - ommunist 10y ago
    No mate. Lets design the monetary system no one can have capital from it except the state, which is elected by the people to serve public interest, and is under control. Jews will become outlawed minority automagically, but not all of them, Kibbuzim are very welcome.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
force_reboot 10y ago
Violence can come from the left or the right. Sure, there might be a "reckoning" where the 1% are punished for their alleged misdeeds. Their might also be a "reckoning" where leftists are punished for spreading an allegedly subversive and counterproductive ideology. Both have certainly happened in the past. The problem with your reasoning, is that you have already assumed that you've won the intellectual debate and so your opponents are only acting from self-interest. But the main "reactionary" posts (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796842 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796842 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796746) contain good counterarguments to the article that you haven't addressed.
dang 10y ago
> HN tends to be extremely reactionary to posts like this. Perhaps because the tech/startup scene is all about getting rich quick Claims like this are common but seem mostly to be cognitive bias. The community is divided, and people on each side of the divide perceive it as skewing the opposite way. I think it's because statements we disagree with stand out more starkly than the ones we agree with. Painful experiences are more memorable than pleasurable ones.

by adwhit 10y ago

mbfg 10y ago

i understand your sentiment here, and in the view of history this is true. The problem is that now, or very soon, we are/will be in a state where the 1% can easily put down the 99% politically, socially, financially and yes militarily. So there may be a reckoning at some point. But it will and badly for the 99%. This was mostly true throughout history as well, it's just become a more certainty now.

praptak 10y ago
"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."
- futureiswithus 10y ago
  We can boycott the rich. And when we cant, we can just choose to buy from the least rich
  - ommunist 10y ago
    Try. Boycot banks by giving them no money, maintain social lending in your local area, see what happen then.
  - khedoros 10y ago
    That sounds more like a theoretical solution than a practical one. You'd need to get most of the population to ignore short-term convenience and pay higher prices for things (optimizing for a different metric than lowest cost). I don't think that will happen.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  -French Nobles just before the revolution
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Just saw your comment. You beat me to it. Here's mine, though, which provides a key detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797166
Joeri 10y ago
100.000 british men simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate. Throughout history it has been the case that sustained perceived inequality inevitably leads to revolution. We're nowhere near that point, but if trend lines continue and the middle class gets wiped out, it will happen. Democracy is supposed to prevent things from getting that bad, but we have seen that free elections are easily manipulated when you control the money and the message people hear, which is why these presidential elections will once again be a vote for either of two pro-super-rich candidates. Ironically it is in the super-rich's best interest to raise taxes on themselves to stop this from getting out of hand.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Sure they can. Their weapon is the media instead of bullets. They just have to convince at least half of them the British policies benefit them. Plus provide them with guns. They'll shoot the other half for the British. Just like Democrat vs Republican politics and media in the U.S.. Nation can't win if it's divided and fighting each other over the actions of elites who they continue to fund and vote in. ;)
  - jonknee 10y ago
    ... And yet Gandhi was right. Those 100,000 British men failed and India is today the world's largest democracy.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      He was right and wrong. He was right that 100,000 British men couldn't use lead with obviously-bad situation to control India. He was wrong given small numbers of men used a careful combo of military, money, and media to control U.S., Britain, and India. Currently, India mainly serves as cheap labor to support money-making operations in U.S., Britain, and other countries. Gandhi was ultimately wrong: original exploitation was simply using tactics without psychological acceptance today's tactics have.
jonknee 10y ago
> The problem is that now, or very soon, we are/will be in a state where the 1% can easily put down the 99% politically, socially, financially and yes militarily. They don't seem to be doing so hot politically. The poor Koch brothers can't even buy a primary election anymore.
foobarian 10y ago
Moreover, it there ends up being a violent reckoning, the outcome will be the 1% will be swapped out for a different 1% which will likely be worse than they are now. E.g. military junta or a bunch of mobsters.

dnautics 10y ago

Why does government have to do something? Don't you suppose it's part of the problem? We have an economic system imposed on us that is unsustainable and redistributes from the poor to the wealthy in the name of economic stability, "growth" and "creating jobs" as if optimizing those metrics will necessarily be to the benefit of anyone but the top.

smt88 10y ago
If something has to be done on a large scale, government has to do it. Massive change has to be through a medium that is culpable and transparent. That is, in theory, a position only a government can or should hold. US government needs thorough reform, but the mechanism of change has to be a government in the end.
- dnautics 10y ago
  Since when are governments "culpable and transparent"?
  - smt88 10y ago
    They aren't completely, but they are more so than private institutions can (or should) be. What alternative is there? Also, non-military portions of government in the US tend to be surprisingly transparent.
themartorana 10y ago
Because in the end, the "government" is the only thing maintaining some order. There is no civilization without it - and anyone that tells you differently just can't visualize where "government" exists in their example. When the rules of society get out of whack, government can either help solve the issue, or double down on bad policies. When they do the latter, they eventually become chapters in history books. Yes, certain (many) actors in government now are reinforcing the problems, but to solve many of them at scale, you need government to be involved, if not in charge.
- 10y ago

marincounty 10y ago

If I was in the wealthy club, my biggest fear for myself, and my family would be one thing. "I hope we don't turn into Mexico, where if you have a few assets; you literally run the risk of kidnapping for ransom, etc." You couldn't give my enough money to worry about sitting in the park, or concerned if my kids are safe. Plus, what fun is it going on vacation, a function, a party, a nice dinner, when the rest of society is struggling? Another big drawback to wealth, you will never know if he/she loves you for you? You might think you know, but goodluck. And don't get me started on rich kids! It's like giving them a loaded gun? What's the point of all this wealth, if you need security, complex prenuptials, phoney friends, canieving family mebmers(middle, low class can be ruthless, immoral too.) I live near a few 1 percenter's and they don't have better emotional lives. They don't need to worry about money, but they have some retched worries; I would never want. (This op is falling a bit too quick? I just wonder sometimes? Censoring it will not make the sentiments go away?)

Mu37 10y ago

Western society/governments will start looking more and more like the Chinese I feel, cause western society hasn't found any serious alternate way of reigning in the 1%. It will most likely happen after the "something bad" stuff does.

todd8 10y ago
China has greater ratios of inequality than the US. See World Bank figures: http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.9 http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.9
- anke_ 10y ago
  Which would support the hypothesis. Greater inequality greater the tendencies for authoritarian control. US inequality is on a increasing trajectory with nothing likely to stop it. So where else do we end up?

nickpsecurity 10y ago

The funny thing is that the leaked memos to the super-rich describe exactly those threats to their wealth and existence. http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutono...

CM30 10y ago

Yeah, and to some degree, this feeling is what a lot of reactionary and anti establishment parties are doing well off of at the moment. Growing inequality means that there's a lot of votes for political parties on the far left and right whose solution to this is basically 'destroy everything'. I suspect fears of this are also why 'identity politics' has become a scourge in the last few years or so. Why immigration is often used as the fear of the moment. Why so much of the media tries to paint people as bigots. Because things were getting quite bad against the 1% beforehand, with stuff like Occupy being a good example. Getting people to turn against each other over gender, race, personal hobbies and interests, religion and minor social differences diverts the anger to targets that don't threaten them.

vixen99 10y ago

For nth time can we please stop talking about 'tax-avoiding' as if it's something we should not do? Every sensible individual so arranges their affairs so as to avoid tax as much as possible within the law. Governments of whatever stripe set the tax rules. We citizens obey. Government is always free to change the rules to suit its tax raising objectives. Tax evasion is of course illegal. As UK Judge Lord Clyde stated 'No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue'

adwhit 10y ago
Can I lobby the government to change the law to lower my tax bill? No, I'm not wealthy enough. Top marginal income tax rates in the UK during the 60s were 98%.
- todd8 10y ago
  The top marginal rates don't reflect what is actually paid in taxes. The tax laws are complex, very complex for high income people. Although the top marginal rates for individuals has come down dramatically from the highs of decades ago in the USA, the actual tax paid as a percentage of total income has gone up in the US for the top 10%. The USA has a very progressive tax system. The top 20% of earners in the USA make 51% of total US income(2014) and pay 84% of total US income tax. This data is pretty easy to find: OECD publications, see [1], WSJ see [2] [1] http://darp.lse.ac.uk/resources/books/GrowingUnequal_OECD.pdf http://darp.lse.ac.uk/resources/books/GrowingUnequal_OECD.pd... [2] http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384 http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-inco...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

narag 10y ago

I hope we can reign in the rentiering, tax-avoiding, propaganda-publishing rich and reclaim democracy before Something Bad happens. Frankly, I don't believe anything really bad happens to very rich people. A nice perk of becoming super-rich.

y4mi 10y ago
you must've missed your history lessons then. the mobs always went for them first and killed their hole families. it hasn't happend in over 100 years though and its likely that it won't happen again, as the rich can buy automated defense systems nowadays that could slaughter any amount of revolutionaries that come knocking on their doors
- narag 10y ago
  When monarchy was hereditary, there was an obvious target. Now most rich persons are unknown out of a small circle. And they will take a jet to Switzerland or the Tropics. The power is outsourced to politicians.

mouzogu 10y ago

The problem is one of gross, immoral and unjustifiable inequality. Everything else is just semantics, conjecture and informed or misinformed opinion. I hope I live to see the day when the parasites of society meet their reckoning as I believe the idea of a more equal society coming about by reason as totally naive and foolhardy.

aoeusnth1 10y ago
So... let's kill all the greedy Jews that charge interest for their money lending? /s No thanks. I think a few reforms are enough to make things fair - a UBI, capital gains treated as normal income, and political funding reform. We don't need any more of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...
- ommunist 10y ago
  No mate. Lets design the monetary system no one can have capital from it except the state, which is elected by the people to serve public interest, and is under control. Jews will become outlawed minority automagically, but not all of them, Kibbuzim are very welcome.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

force_reboot 10y ago

Violence can come from the left or the right. Sure, there might be a "reckoning" where the 1% are punished for their alleged misdeeds. Their might also be a "reckoning" where leftists are punished for spreading an allegedly subversive and counterproductive ideology. Both have certainly happened in the past. The problem with your reasoning, is that you have already assumed that you've won the intellectual debate and so your opponents are only acting from self-interest. But the main "reactionary" posts (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796842 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796842 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11796746) contain good counterarguments to the article that you haven't addressed.

dang 10y ago

> HN tends to be extremely reactionary to posts like this. Perhaps because the tech/startup scene is all about getting rich quick Claims like this are common but seem mostly to be cognitive bias. The community is divided, and people on each side of the divide perceive it as skewing the opposite way. I think it's because statements we disagree with stand out more starkly than the ones we agree with. Painful experiences are more memorable than pleasurable ones.