10 ms·
The Benefits of Economic Expansions Are Increasingly Going to the Richest
- Qworg 9y ago2014, but still shocking.
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoI may be too much of finance nerd to experience any emotions about but where were you for the last decade?
- baxtr 9y agoWell, I guess something similar like a "land reform" would be of help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform
- sintaxi 9y agoThis would not help. Land in of itself is not that valuable. What has value is what people develop/produce with the land. Or location to those who have developed their land. Property rights are better thought of as extensions of human rights. The reason why you build a factory is because property rights will protect your ability to use and eventually sell the factory. The reason why you plant crops is because property rights protect your exclusive right to harvest them. If someone wants to acquire land it really isn't that difficult or that expensive until you want land that people have invested in or around.
- TosLink2 9y agoThe effects of globalism... Upper management stays employed and gets richer, everyone below (the middle class previously) are out of a job. Child labor and inhumane working conditions overseas and mass pollution of our entire planet. How is it that progressives actually think this is a good thing? (this is an honest question).
- ZeroGravitas 9y agoIf, as Economists suggest, the total wealth is increased, then it could be distributed so that everyone is better off (nationally and globally). Generally progressive governments support policies that would distribute the gains in that kind of way. Non-progressive governments blame outgroups, steal from the powerless and give to the already wealthy, creating the problems you blame the progressives and globalism for.
- mistermann 9y agoWhat do they steal from the powerless?
- luckydata 9y agoBecause they are easier to bully as they are powerless. Duh.
- QAPereo 9y agoWhat makes you think that they do?
- beebmam 9y agoIt doesn't have to be the effect of globalism. Redistribution of wealth and land is quite effective.
- oppositelock 9y agoIt's not globalism, per se, globalism is a symptom of monetary policy implemented in tandem by most of the world's central banks. The root cause is that every developed nation on earth runs an inflationary monetary policy coupled with perpetual deficit spending. Money creation via central banks and deficits is not uniform, it pours into economies via cheap credit, subsidies, spending on boondoggles, and it's the people who have first access to this newly created money who benefit the most, and these tend to be the people with a lot of capital, political connections, etc. The average person simply sees their limited buying power decreasing over time.
- zerostar07 9y agoexcept cryptocurrencies
- mark_edward 9y agoWhat? Bitcoin ownership is even more concentrated
- quadrangle 9y agoyou think that the winners in wealth redistribution happening around cryptocurrencies are mostly the not-so-rich? There may be a decent number of non-rich folks who are now rich this way, but I doubt that cryptocurrencies are effectively working in reverse of the wealth-inequity trends…
- dnautics 9y agoIs that surprising? Economic expansions are largely driven by monetary (stimulus, QE<N>) and fiscal policy (bailout, contracting), as a part of deliberate politics ("we need to create jobs", e.g.). As these events are derived from centralized, hierarchical organizations (Fed, us gov't, ECB, EC), the benefits will disproportionately flow to those that have access; part of the reason why the richest are the richest is because they have had success in the past obtaining exactly that access. It's rather ironic that the keynesian perspective in the article is that the policies "aren't targeted" but in reality they couldn't be anything but.
- Daishiman 9y agoWell they could increase the amount of public spending and increase the tax rates for the top brackets and it has been historically in periods where rates of income inequality have gone down. But no, for some ridiculous reason those ideas seem to be unacceptable with the Overton Window defined by mass-media (conglomerate-owned, of course) and economists who propose small-state solutions.
- andrenth 9y agoIf inequality goes down because the rich become less rich, is that a win?
- ericjang 9y agoThe analysis in this article was based on data from Thomas Piketty and collaborators, who have also compiled an extremely detailed and comprehensive analysis of the subject of capital & wealth & inequality. I highly recommend Piketty's book, "Capital in the 21st Century" (see Goodreads comments for abridged summaries and reviews by readers). Not only is it totally convincing (and depressing), but it also provides a very clear understanding of the course of modern history since the 19th century. It's amazing to see how clear economic policy (whether Marxist or Capitalist or anything in between) becomes when viewed through the lens of society grappling with the problem of capital/income/inequality. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18736925-capital-in-the-twenty-first-century https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18736925-capital-in-the-...
- hux_ 9y agoThere are few known ecosystems, without a small bunch of apex predators. If nature hasn't figured out how to do it any different, given the time she has had, neither are we. If you are not powerful, make yourself useful to the powerful. And that doesn't mean working for a douchebag.
- Karrot_Kream 9y ago> If nature hasn't figured out how to do it any different, given the time she has had, neither are we. Not following the logic here at all. What does an economy have to do with an ecosystem? What is "nature"? Are there Apex predator bacteria? How does an Apex preditor map to an economic actor? This is as lazy naturalist fallacy as it gets.
- hux_ 9y agoNature doesn't have any great goal just like economies don't. They are just chaotic systems we pretend to understand to claim control. The temporary periods such systems achieve some temporary stablity is when heirarchies form. Talk to an ecologist, if you want more plankton in a fixed amount of ocean you have to kill whales. If you want more whales you have produce more plankton as in you need a bigger ocean. Same story with the economy whether you pick Genghis Khan or Mark Zuckerberg you can't produce them without millions of plebs.
- DangsTooSlow 9y agoLadies and gentlemen, I give you... HackerNews: The Political Platform: Step 1.) Vote for Obama Step 2.) "OMG CIVIL RIGHTS ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED" Step 3.) Support his continuation and acceleration of the Bush Era bank bailouts and War on Terror Step 4.) Accuse everyone who disagrees with this policy a racist for 8 years straight Step 5.) Watch as banks spend that bailout money on investments overseas because you're too irresponsible with credit, thus maintaining LIBOR while decoupling it from Keynesian virtuous cycles Step 6.) Get super upset when nationalist movements appear because, honestly, how are flyover states with no tech skills even alive, amirite? I bet they have below 100 Reddit karma, too. Step 7.) Deploy endless volumes of Jon Stewart-tier sarcasm when BitCoin suddenly appears and mock libertarians because we all know mocking people who support and expand a vehicle for capital flight is a super fucking brilliant idea. Step 8.) Call everyone in the last two steps not only racists, but super duper ultra triple meanie racists for the remainder of Obama's term. Step 9.) Aggressively support anti-1% narratives for Twitter cred reasons (as long as you can still afford that Juicero) while writing code that solidifies their position Step 10.) Act startled when a bunch of people who didn't get benefits from repealing Glass-Stegall or get a six-figure salary paycheck for creating dog walker apps suddenly rise up and elect a grand master troll as president because fuck your system and your "intelligence" Step 11.) Call everyone who isn't you a classification of racist that escapes measurement because the number to describe its intensity hasn't been invented yet. Step 12.) Wonder why the surveillance systems you've programmed under Obama are now being deployed against you. Step 13.) Write a comment on HackerNews complaining about this synopsis.
- DangsTooSlow 9y agoLadies and gentlemen, I give you... HackerNews: The Political Platform: Step 1.) Vote for Obama Step 2.) "OMG CIVIL RIGHTS ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED" Step 3.) Support his continuation and acceleration of the Bush Era bank bailouts and War on Terror Step 4.) Accuse everyone who disagrees with this policy a racist for 8 years straight Step 5.) Watch as banks spend that bailout money on investments overseas because you're too irresponsible with credit, thus maintaining LIBOR while decoupling it from Keynesian virtuous cycles Step 6.) Get super upset when nationalist movements appear because, honestly, how are flyover states with no tech skills even alive, amirite? I bet they have below 100 Reddit karma, too. Step 7.) Deploy endless volumes of Jon Stewart-tier sarcasm when BitCoin suddenly appears and mock libertarians because we all know mocking people who support and expand a vehicle for capital flight is a super fucking brilliant idea. Step 8.) Call everyone in the last two steps not only racists, but super duper ultra triple meanie racists for the remainder of Obama's term. Step 9.) Aggressively support anti-1% narratives for Twitter cred reasons (as long as you can still afford that Juicero) while writing code that solidifies their position Step 10.) Act startled when a bunch of people who didn't get benefits from repealing Glass-Stegall or get a six-figure salary paycheck for creating dog walker apps suddenly rise up and elect a grand master troll as president because fuck your system and your "intelligence" Step 11.) Call everyone who isn't you a classification of racist that escapes measurement because the number to describe its intensity hasn't been invented yet. Step 12.) Wonder why the surveillance systems you've programmed under Obama are now being deployed against you. Step 13.) Write a comment on HackerNews complaining about this synopsis.
- DangsTooSlow 9y agoLadies and gentlemen, I give you... HackerNews: The Political Platform: Step 1.) Vote for Obama Step 2.) "OMG CIVIL RIGHTS ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED" Step 3.) Support his continuation and acceleration of the Bush Era bank bailouts and War on Terror Step 4.) Accuse everyone who disagrees with this policy a racist for 8 years straight Step 5.) Watch as banks spend that bailout money on investments overseas because you're too irresponsible with credit, thus maintaining LIBOR while decoupling it from Keynesian virtuous cycles Step 6.) Get super upset when nationalist movements appear because, honestly, how are flyover states with no tech skills even alive, amirite? I bet they have below 100 Reddit karma, too. Step 7.) Deploy endless volumes of Jon Stewart-tier sarcasm when BitCoin suddenly appears and mock libertarians because we all know mocking people who support and expand a vehicle for capital flight is a super fucking brilliant idea. Step 8.) Call everyone in the last two steps not only racists, but super duper ultra triple meanie racists for the remainder of Obama's term. Step 9.) Aggressively support anti-1% narratives for Twitter cred reasons (as long as you can still afford that Juicero) while writing code that solidifies their position Step 10.) Act startled when a bunch of people who didn't get benefits from repealing Glass-Stegall or get a six-figure salary paycheck for creating dog walker apps suddenly rise up and elect a grand master troll as president because fuck your system and your "intelligence" Step 11.) Call everyone who isn't you a classification of racist that escapes measurement because the number to describe its intensity hasn't been invented yet. Step 12.) Wonder why the surveillance systems you've programmed under Obama are now being deployed against you. Step 13.) Flag, downvote, and ban anything and anyone that reminds you of your direct complicity in this evolution of wealth transfer.
- DangsTooSlow 9y agoLadies and gentlemen, I give you... HackerNews: The Political Platform: Step 1.) Vote for Obama Step 2.) "OMG CIVIL RIGHTS ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED" Step 3.) Support his continuation and acceleration of the Bush Era bank bailouts and War on Terror Step 4.) Accuse everyone who disagrees with this policy a racist for 8 years straight Step 5.) Watch as banks spend that bailout money on investments overseas because you're too irresponsible with credit, thus maintaining LIBOR while decoupling it from Keynesian virtuous cycles Step 6.) Get super upset when nationalist movements appear because, honestly, how are flyover states with no tech skills even alive, amirite? I bet they have below 100 Reddit karma, too. Step 7.) Deploy endless volumes of Jon Stewart-tier sarcasm when BitCoin suddenly appears and mock libertarians because we all know mocking people who support and expand a vehicle for capital flight is a super fucking brilliant idea. Step 8.) Call everyone in the last two steps not only racists, but super duper ultra triple meanie racists for the remainder of Obama's term. Step 9.) Aggressively support anti-1% narratives for Twitter cred reasons (as long as you can still afford that Juicero) while writing code that solidifies their position Step 10.) Act startled when a bunch of people who didn't get benefits from repealing Glass-Stegall or get a six-figure salary paycheck for creating dog walker apps suddenly rise up and elect a grand master troll as president because fuck your system and your "intelligence" Step 11.) Call everyone who isn't you a classification of racist that escapes measurement because the number to describe its intensity hasn't been invented yet. Step 12.) Wonder why the surveillance systems you've programmed under Obama are now being deployed against you. Step 13.) Flag, downvote, intimidate, and ban anything and anyone that reminds you of your direct complicity in this evolution of wealth transfer.
- jdblair 9y agoFYI, 2014.
- DangsTooSlow 9y agoLadies and gentlemen, I give you... HackerNews: The Political Platform: Step 1.) Vote for Obama Step 2.) "OMG CIVIL RIGHTS ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED" Step 3.) Support his continuation and acceleration of the Bush Era bank bailouts and War on Terror Step 4.) Accuse everyone who disagrees with this policy a racist for 8 years straight Step 5.) Watch as banks spend that bailout money on investments overseas because you're too irresponsible with credit, thus maintaining LIBOR while decoupling it from Keynesian virtuous cycles Step 6.) Get super upset when nationalist movements appear because, honestly, how are flyover states with no tech skills even alive, amirite? I bet they have below 100 Reddit karma, too. Step 7.) Deploy endless volumes of Jon Stewart-tier sarcasm when BitCoin suddenly appears and mock libertarians because we all know mocking people who support and expand a vehicle for capital flight is a super fucking brilliant idea. Step 8.) Call everyone in the last two steps not only racists, but super duper ultra triple meanie racists for the remainder of Obama's term. Step 9.) Aggressively support anti-1% narratives for Twitter cred reasons (as long as you can still afford that Juicero) while writing code that solidifies their position Step 10.) Act startled when a bunch of people who didn't get benefits from repealing Glass-Stegall or get a six-figure salary paycheck for creating dog walker apps suddenly rise up and elect a grand master troll as president because fuck your system and your "intelligence" Step 11.) Call everyone who isn't you a classification of racist that escapes measurement because the number to describe its intensity hasn't been invented yet. Step 12.) Wonder why the surveillance systems you've programmed under Obama are now being deployed against you. Step 13.) Flag, downvote, harrass, and ban anything and anyone that reminds you of your direct complicity in this evolution of wealth transfer.
- xandar11 9y agoWhy are people obsessed with this topic lately? Do you think fame inequality is a problem? There are people who have 100s of millions of followers/fans and then there are people who are not famous (vast majority). Why is that not considered a problem? Fame inequality: 1. Undermines democracy. If you have a tiny group of famous people who have a massive cultural influence, their ideas and opinions matter almost infinitely more than ideas of those who are not famous. This by definition undermines the idea that everyone's opinion/vote should have equal weight. 2. Damages people's health. When people see someone famous it can make them depressed because they are constantly being compared to cultural icons. This can have serious impact on psychological health. 3. Perpetuates itself. People can become famous and get a leg up in life just because their parents are famous. Is that fair to all talented people who don't have famous parents?
- conanbatt 9y agoIt is feasible to believe a dystopian reality on economic inequality. Some economists have even argued that it was inequality that toppled vast empires, due to the inherent improductive consequences of economic inequality. Inequality can be a problem alone, even if all else is equal ,because the greatest danger to freedom is the concentration of power, and what is inequality but the concentration of wealth and power into fewer hands?
- sintaxi 9y agoPeople are obsessed with this topic because they are looking for justification to steal from those wealthier than them. Its textbook Marxism.
- dang 9y agoPlease don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They lead to flamewars and are reliably some of the most low-quality subthreads we see here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- solidsnack9000 9y agoIt is closely tied to wealth inequality. Famous people without wealth are not likely to influence much, nor are they likely able to make their children famous.
- paulus_magnus2 9y agoBeyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed). I don't envy the rich nor am a communist so let them be as rich as they want as long as we don't compete for the same resources. Yes. Houses (actually Land). Let them bid up Mona Lisa, Diamonds, old Ferraris til infinity if they want. But don't park your money in land inflating house prices beyond what local wages can support making me pay 30% of my salary in rent for 10 years waiting for a house price "correction". Wealth should be chased out of non productive pure rent seeking "investments".
- dxhdr 9y ago> Beyond a certain point more wealth has zero marginal utility (pure greed). You're picturing wealth as 0's in a checking account but "more wealth" is control of capital, probably shares in an increasingly valuable company. I don't think we've discovered the limits of capital utility; the power and influence some companies wield is only increasing.
- aalleavitch 9y agoAt some point wealth moves past material goods and into the realm of your ability to influence society. If only everyone with money had noble goals when it came to this influence...
- username223 9y agoIf only we could separate the power to reshape society for personal benefit from the ability to score "mine is bigger than yours" points. Zuck, Gates, the Kochs, and others probably have "buy a President" money, and could probably also develop personal nuclear arsenals. Let them play that video game and compete for new high scores.
- xtiansimon 9y agoNet Neutrality
- conanbatt 9y ago
- twoodfin 9y ago2014. And the headline result from the last recession only captures 3 years of the recovery, through 2012, when equity markets had climbed back significantly, but always-lagging labor markets had not. I’d be shocked if the numbers didn’t look very different if you looked at the expansionary cycle to date.
- starchild_3001 9y agoHey, this article isn't news! US median income has been stagnant since 70ies, while mean income has grown steadily. The gains obviously accrued to highest income earners. We should talk about it. But we shouldn't think of it like something new.
- starchild_3001 9y agoAlso to add: Economic growth comes from producing more. "Mean has grown, but median has stagnated" means top earners are producing more (e.g. better software & hardware), while below-median earners aren't necessarily producing more (think of the services sector). If efficiency doesn't go up, incomes may and do remain stagnant.
- conanbatt 9y agoAt this point Im fairly convinced that LVT is the way to go. There is a tremendous confusion in separating wealth from producers to non-producers. Taxes very frequently end up going from the poor to the rich, because of how benefits are given away (ex. prop 13, mortgage interest deductions, rent control). Not only that, taxing the rich for producing would make less production, which is fundamental for economic growth. Why should a developer build a 40 apt building and pay 100x the taxes a month single family home next to it pays? Didnt he just make everyone a lot richer by his planning and exhertion?
- jswizzy 9y agoIt's almost as if wealth doesn't follow a Gaussian distribution and the Pareto power law applies to a few extreme cases.
- seventytwo 9y agoBecause the balance between capitalism and the state is out of whack. Capitalism has far too much power and influence. It needs to swing back a few degrees so that the common man can get a bigger cut of pie (or a slice at all)
- pitaj 9y agoA better word for it is corporatism. Ironic how the state (at least in the case of the US) is the largest it has ever been.