4 ms·

They're not really growth curves, the curves show relative growth rates. Not quite the same thing. And if you think some central mechanism has gone horribly aw

They're not really growth curves, the curves show relative growth rates. Not quite the same thing. And if you think some central mechanism has gone horribly awry, what central mechanisms changed around 1980?

dhimes 9y ago
IIRC, one of the things that changed back then was a movement away from workers having retirement plans with the companies they worked for (pensions) and toward managing their retirement individually (IRAs). This could have conceivably led to a new, steady source of investment in the stock market through mutual funds and whatnot (and perhaps even more aggressive investments presumably), which, if the changes shown on that graph could be thought to be generously helped by investment income, may explain some of this. Disclaimer: I don't know enough about this stuff to make a definitive argument.
pantalaimon 9y ago
> what central mechanisms changed around 1980? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics ?
frandroid 9y ago
Massive shift of the taxation burden from corporations to citizens.
- nateabele 9y ago
  Charts / sources?
nateabele 9y ago
> They're not really growth curves, the curves show relative growth rates. Not quite the same thing. An exponential growth curve is an exponential growth curve, irrespective of what it measures. Thanks anyway for the pedantry. > And if you think some central mechanism has gone horribly awry, what central mechanisms changed around 1980? In 1974, the US dollar switched from being a store of value to a store of debt: https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserv...
- JamesBarney 9y ago
  I know people without valid credential sometimes have very insightful ideas. And sometimes it's hard to have a discussion with someone when they don't understand the fundamentals of a field. However it would be nice if you went into detail as opposed to just linking to that book. It's not part of the standard economic body of knowledge so I don't think it would be appropriate to expect your would be arguers to read it, especially when the author's wikipedia page is G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, author, lecturer, and filmmaker. He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes theories about the motives behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System.[1][2] Griffin's writings include a number of views regarding various political, defense and health care interests. In his book World Without Cancer, he argues that cancer is a nutritional deficiency that can be cured by consuming amygdalin, a view regarded as quackery by the medical community.[1][3][4] He is an HIV/AIDS denialist, supports the 9/11 Truth movement, and supports a specific John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory.[1] Also, he believes the actual geographical location of the biblical Noah's Ark is located at the Durupınar site in Turkey.[5]
  - nateabele 9y ago
    And James Watson has some pretty wacky ideas about biology, but he still discovered the structure of DNA. I'm not sure how not to take most of this, other than as ad hominem. Other people have cited links elsewhere in the thread [0], and I don't feel especially compelled to be redundant. Not sure what to suggest other than googling some Austrian economists and their views on inflation. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14960011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14960011
    - gknoy 9y ago
      > some Austrian economists Aren't there multiple schools of thought about economics? How do I know which one is the Right One to believe? Do they differ fundamentally on some levels? I feel like googling for some school's teachings runs the risk of drinking one side's kool-aid, without even realizing what the counter-viewpoint is. Is there a good way to get a neutral overview of the different economic schools of thought, other than taking courses at a local university?
randomdata 9y ago
> what central mechanisms changed around 1980? The Copyright Act of 1976, perhaps? If we look at the list of wealthiest Americans, most of them are there because they provide something to the world that nobody else is able to directly copy. Without competition, there is no mechanism to spread the money around.
- nateabele 9y ago
  This would certainly disproportionately impact authors, entertainers, and anyone else who makes royalties from media, but I don't know that they represent a large enough swath of the economy to account for the broad trends we see here. To my original point, though, making money off of a copyrighted work represents income from an asset, the value of which compounds over time, due to inflation.
  - randomdata 9y ago
    > I don't know that they represent a large enough swath of the economy to account for the broad trends we see here. I'm not sure it is that broad to begin with. The 99.999 percentile of adults with these near-infinite income gains represents only ~2,000 people. While wealth and income aren't the same thing, I expect there is a lot of overlap with this list[1] that outlines 400 of the potential names. If you look at how they made their fortunes, many are directly attributable to copyright. Bill Gates certainly wouldn't have topped the list if anyone was free to copy/resell Windows. > To my original point, though, making money off of a copyrighted work represents income from an asset, the value of which compounds over time, due to inflation. Increased value of an asset does not necessarily translate to increased income. A primary residence, for instance, is a good example. The value of your home may be increasing, but nobody is paying you to live there. Many people are quite happy to pay top dollar for an asset that generates no revenue on the hope that capital gains alone make the purchase provide returns. But you do rightfully point out that those who have entire control over a certain asset have complete control over the streams of money directed at that asset. That is not exclusively limited to copyright, but changes to copyright opened up a whole new set of wide-ranging assets to hold that were previously not there. Anyone holding hard assets was presumably already milking it for everything it was worth, thus, while incredibly profitable, not increasingly profitable. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/10/04/forbes-400-the-full-list-of-the-richest-people-in-america-2016/#6239af4022f4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/10/04/forbes-...

dhimes 9y ago

IIRC, one of the things that changed back then was a movement away from workers having retirement plans with the companies they worked for (pensions) and toward managing their retirement individually (IRAs). This could have conceivably led to a new, steady source of investment in the stock market through mutual funds and whatnot (and perhaps even more aggressive investments presumably), which, if the changes shown on that graph could be thought to be generously helped by investment income, may explain some of this. Disclaimer: I don't know enough about this stuff to make a definitive argument.

pantalaimon 9y ago

> what central mechanisms changed around 1980? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics ?

frandroid 9y ago

Massive shift of the taxation burden from corporations to citizens.

nateabele 9y ago
Charts / sources?

nateabele 9y ago

> They're not really growth curves, the curves show relative growth rates. Not quite the same thing. An exponential growth curve is an exponential growth curve, irrespective of what it measures. Thanks anyway for the pedantry. > And if you think some central mechanism has gone horribly awry, what central mechanisms changed around 1980? In 1974, the US dollar switched from being a store of value to a store of debt: https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserv...

JamesBarney 9y ago
I know people without valid credential sometimes have very insightful ideas. And sometimes it's hard to have a discussion with someone when they don't understand the fundamentals of a field. However it would be nice if you went into detail as opposed to just linking to that book. It's not part of the standard economic body of knowledge so I don't think it would be appropriate to expect your would be arguers to read it, especially when the author's wikipedia page is G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, author, lecturer, and filmmaker. He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes theories about the motives behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System.[1][2] Griffin's writings include a number of views regarding various political, defense and health care interests. In his book World Without Cancer, he argues that cancer is a nutritional deficiency that can be cured by consuming amygdalin, a view regarded as quackery by the medical community.[1][3][4] He is an HIV/AIDS denialist, supports the 9/11 Truth movement, and supports a specific John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory.[1] Also, he believes the actual geographical location of the biblical Noah's Ark is located at the Durupınar site in Turkey.[5]
- nateabele 9y ago
  And James Watson has some pretty wacky ideas about biology, but he still discovered the structure of DNA. I'm not sure how not to take most of this, other than as ad hominem. Other people have cited links elsewhere in the thread [0], and I don't feel especially compelled to be redundant. Not sure what to suggest other than googling some Austrian economists and their views on inflation. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14960011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14960011
  - gknoy 9y ago
    > some Austrian economists Aren't there multiple schools of thought about economics? How do I know which one is the Right One to believe? Do they differ fundamentally on some levels? I feel like googling for some school's teachings runs the risk of drinking one side's kool-aid, without even realizing what the counter-viewpoint is. Is there a good way to get a neutral overview of the different economic schools of thought, other than taking courses at a local university?

randomdata 9y ago

> what central mechanisms changed around 1980? The Copyright Act of 1976, perhaps? If we look at the list of wealthiest Americans, most of them are there because they provide something to the world that nobody else is able to directly copy. Without competition, there is no mechanism to spread the money around.

nateabele 9y ago
This would certainly disproportionately impact authors, entertainers, and anyone else who makes royalties from media, but I don't know that they represent a large enough swath of the economy to account for the broad trends we see here. To my original point, though, making money off of a copyrighted work represents income from an asset, the value of which compounds over time, due to inflation.
- randomdata 9y ago
  > I don't know that they represent a large enough swath of the economy to account for the broad trends we see here. I'm not sure it is that broad to begin with. The 99.999 percentile of adults with these near-infinite income gains represents only ~2,000 people. While wealth and income aren't the same thing, I expect there is a lot of overlap with this list[1] that outlines 400 of the potential names. If you look at how they made their fortunes, many are directly attributable to copyright. Bill Gates certainly wouldn't have topped the list if anyone was free to copy/resell Windows. > To my original point, though, making money off of a copyrighted work represents income from an asset, the value of which compounds over time, due to inflation. Increased value of an asset does not necessarily translate to increased income. A primary residence, for instance, is a good example. The value of your home may be increasing, but nobody is paying you to live there. Many people are quite happy to pay top dollar for an asset that generates no revenue on the hope that capital gains alone make the purchase provide returns. But you do rightfully point out that those who have entire control over a certain asset have complete control over the streams of money directed at that asset. That is not exclusively limited to copyright, but changes to copyright opened up a whole new set of wide-ranging assets to hold that were previously not there. Anyone holding hard assets was presumably already milking it for everything it was worth, thus, while incredibly profitable, not increasingly profitable. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/10/04/forbes-400-the-full-list-of-the-richest-people-in-america-2016/#6239af4022f4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/10/04/forbes-...