4 ms·

It’s tough. I’m probably not in that 1%, but this is how finance works. Money begets money. I don’t really understand how you counter the ability for people to

by dfee 9y ago

It’s tough. I’m probably not in that 1%, but this is how finance works. Money begets money. I don’t really understand how you counter the ability for people to invest without breaking the massive consumer protections that exist. Let alone the difficulties that would arise from requiring businessss to raise their capital (through equity or debt financing) from 1M people at $10 each, vs 1 group at $10M. This consumerization of finance looks good at a high level, but is impractical to execute. So, if we want more new capital to go to the 99% - how would we do it?

dvt 9y ago
You live in the US. You are most definitely in the global 1%.
abledon 9y ago
If we're wondering how to better distribute capital/money, I was reminded of this article describing a new monetary system: """But there’s an even more exciting solution we might consider. We could abolish debt-based currency altogether and invent a new money system completely free of intrinsic debt. Instead of letting commercial banks create money by lending it into existence, we could have the state create the money and then spend it into existence. New money would get pumped into the real economy instead of just going straight into financial speculation where it inflates huge asset bubbles that only benefit the mega-rich. """ https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/nov/05/how-a-new-money-system-could-help-stop-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
- dfee 9y ago
  This is actually a principal of Islam, to what I understand. Interest is against the doctrine [0]. I’m not Muslim, so I can’t speak to how well it’s followed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba
satiespickles 9y ago
My sense, from my own area of work, as well as in reading the news and reading economics research, is that there isn't enough competition in the market, and there's too many monopolies. The problem as I see it, in the US at least, is that the solutions to these monopolies don't fall along the lines of the "government good versus government bad" rhetoric that tends to dominate partisan discussions. In some areas and in some ways we need less government, maybe a lot less, and in some areas and in someways we need more, maybe a lot more. In some areas, to my view, there needs to be a lot less regulation, such as in some aspects of healthcare research and service provision (e.g, licensing laws, lots of drug regulation). Sharply reducing intellectual property laws are another example (sharply reducing copyright duration, making patents much more difficult to obtain, reducing terms). In other areas there might be a need for more regulation, such as in pricing transparencies, maybe even in applying anti-monopoly laws to some hospital and insurance groups in some areas. Why aren't we in the US rolling out massive municipal ISP infrastructure, for example? This would solve multiple things at once. I could go on and on. Basically, I see monopolies everywhere. I feel like the government needs to take action to introduce massive amounts of competition into the economy, whether that be through public projects or deregulation, or both. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/craft-beer-industry/550850/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/craft-b... https://slate.com/business/2018/01/a-new-theory-for-why-americans-cant-get-a-raise.html https://slate.com/business/2018/01/a-new-theory-for-why-amer...
- dfee 9y ago
  The big challenge with infrastructure is the maintenance costs. Upon debut, new roads are great. Likely, better than what a private company tasked with the problem could produce (not talking about the actual construction which is, in America, performed by private companies bidding on contracts). However, over time, it appears that we rob the maintenance funds to service other governmental desires - sometimes it’s just what will get the dogcatcher re-elected. So, this virtual monopoly leads to undesirable outcomes. I believe governmental mismanagement of resources is a valid argument against allowing new governmental virtual monopolies. (Examples include American outdated transportation infrastructure, the Flint Michigan water fiasco, governmental shutdowns in federal parks upon new budget constraints, and more). A peculiarity that folks on the left and right fall into is that all is fine when “my guy” is in office, but fail to see the consequences of governmental ownership in worse times. For private companies, at least, there is an advantage that investment (outside of monopolies, which I’m inclined to your perspective) should match demand. Also just noticed the top item on HN right now is about how SpaceX can’t test their rocket because the government Is in fiscal limbo. I’d expect that should creates a new wave of people who are concerned about governmental mis-management. https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/01/21/spacex-unable-test-fire-falcon-heavy-rocket-ksc-due-government-shutdown/1052438001/ https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/0...
danieltillett 9y ago
Start a total war. This seems to be the only thing that causes the 1% to share their wealth with the 99% - nothing like the fear of expropriation to motivate a change in heart from our rulers.
- dfee 9y ago
  Look into the Rothschild family. They’ve profited greatly from wars over the centuries. This actually seems counterproductive to the point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#The_Napoleonic_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#The_Napoleon...

by dfee 9y ago

dvt 9y ago

You live in the US. You are most definitely in the global 1%.

abledon 9y ago

If we're wondering how to better distribute capital/money, I was reminded of this article describing a new monetary system: """But there’s an even more exciting solution we might consider. We could abolish debt-based currency altogether and invent a new money system completely free of intrinsic debt. Instead of letting commercial banks create money by lending it into existence, we could have the state create the money and then spend it into existence. New money would get pumped into the real economy instead of just going straight into financial speculation where it inflates huge asset bubbles that only benefit the mega-rich. """ https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/nov/05/how-a-new-money-system-could-help-stop-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...

dfee 9y ago
This is actually a principal of Islam, to what I understand. Interest is against the doctrine [0]. I’m not Muslim, so I can’t speak to how well it’s followed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba

satiespickles 9y ago

My sense, from my own area of work, as well as in reading the news and reading economics research, is that there isn't enough competition in the market, and there's too many monopolies. The problem as I see it, in the US at least, is that the solutions to these monopolies don't fall along the lines of the "government good versus government bad" rhetoric that tends to dominate partisan discussions. In some areas and in some ways we need less government, maybe a lot less, and in some areas and in someways we need more, maybe a lot more. In some areas, to my view, there needs to be a lot less regulation, such as in some aspects of healthcare research and service provision (e.g, licensing laws, lots of drug regulation). Sharply reducing intellectual property laws are another example (sharply reducing copyright duration, making patents much more difficult to obtain, reducing terms). In other areas there might be a need for more regulation, such as in pricing transparencies, maybe even in applying anti-monopoly laws to some hospital and insurance groups in some areas. Why aren't we in the US rolling out massive municipal ISP infrastructure, for example? This would solve multiple things at once. I could go on and on. Basically, I see monopolies everywhere. I feel like the government needs to take action to introduce massive amounts of competition into the economy, whether that be through public projects or deregulation, or both. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/craft-beer-industry/550850/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/craft-b... https://slate.com/business/2018/01/a-new-theory-for-why-americans-cant-get-a-raise.html https://slate.com/business/2018/01/a-new-theory-for-why-amer...

dfee 9y ago
The big challenge with infrastructure is the maintenance costs. Upon debut, new roads are great. Likely, better than what a private company tasked with the problem could produce (not talking about the actual construction which is, in America, performed by private companies bidding on contracts). However, over time, it appears that we rob the maintenance funds to service other governmental desires - sometimes it’s just what will get the dogcatcher re-elected. So, this virtual monopoly leads to undesirable outcomes. I believe governmental mismanagement of resources is a valid argument against allowing new governmental virtual monopolies. (Examples include American outdated transportation infrastructure, the Flint Michigan water fiasco, governmental shutdowns in federal parks upon new budget constraints, and more). A peculiarity that folks on the left and right fall into is that all is fine when “my guy” is in office, but fail to see the consequences of governmental ownership in worse times. For private companies, at least, there is an advantage that investment (outside of monopolies, which I’m inclined to your perspective) should match demand. Also just noticed the top item on HN right now is about how SpaceX can’t test their rocket because the government Is in fiscal limbo. I’d expect that should creates a new wave of people who are concerned about governmental mis-management. https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/01/21/spacex-unable-test-fire-falcon-heavy-rocket-ksc-due-government-shutdown/1052438001/ https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/0...

danieltillett 9y ago

Start a total war. This seems to be the only thing that causes the 1% to share their wealth with the 99% - nothing like the fear of expropriation to motivate a change in heart from our rulers.

dfee 9y ago
Look into the Rothschild family. They’ve profited greatly from wars over the centuries. This actually seems counterproductive to the point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#The_Napoleonic_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#The_Napoleon...