5 ms·

Looking at section two I'm struck by just how much better it is to be at the top, not only are you at the top but you're accelerating upward faster than everybo

Looking at section two I'm struck by just how much better it is to be at the top, not only are you at the top but you're accelerating upward faster than everybody else too. This is as good a place as any, do you guys have any readings on 'winner take all'-ification and/or how to reverse it?

maxxxxx 9y ago
This seems to be the trend throughout history. At the beginning people get to the top through merit and then they start believing that everything that happens is because of their greatness and they think they deserve an ever growing share of the economy. We are observing the creation of a new kind of aristocracy. Usually this gets only reverted through a big upheaval like a war, revolution or another big event. Then the the cycle starts new with different players.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  Yup. And we've seen the rumblings of this in the US in the past few years, on both sides. Too bad racism is our thing over 'class warfare'. Think that goes back to the everyone thinking their a temporarily inconvenienced millionaire thing.
bfrog 9y ago
It will fail when quality of life degrades quickly enough for the have nots (most of us). As in we can't afford a roof of the non-roach motel kind even with well above median wages (already true). Can't afford to get sick (been true). At what point do these sorts of situations go from "well, thats just the way things are now" to "burn this mother down" is playing the lotto, but I'd say the odds are moving towards "burn it down" on the daily.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  I don't know... the blatantly corrupt behavior of several of the world's most prominent government officials has got me sharpening my peasant's pitchfork, refueling my castle-burning torch, and thinking "soon". But they have these fancy stab-resistant vests and flame-retardant castle treatments now, so I'm not entirely sure if I can accomplish anything significant without a howling, bloodthirsty mob behind me. It wasn't the existence of ultra-rich jerks. At least Jobs and Bezos could bring product to market. Those guys, I didn't have to worry about when I'm not buying from them. It's when the wealthies get involved in government and start changing the rules for their own benefit that makes me want to start weaving some head-catcher baskets. I can stand just being relatively poor compared to some other person. I can't stand being oppressed and exploited, or having my personal agency removed, by people incapable of even feigning empathy. Their mistake was not in being rich, but in allowing themselves to believe that wealth correlates with superiority. Right now, I'd put it at around a 2% chance of contagious civil unrest per calendar year in the US, and rising. Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. A lot of people are drooling over the special counsel investigations, and hoping to check a few trends with the midterm elections. The majority still wants peaceful resolution for their political issues, but a lot of people have given up on that. If it ever does flip to "burn it all down", that will go a lot faster than most people can react to it.
  - tachyoff 9y ago
    > Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. And yet, nobody votes. Everyone is apparently so willing to participate in violent revolution (which typically ends badly, if you read history), but nobody wants to head over to a church or school on a Tuesday in August. Nobody wants to go to city council meetings. Nobody wants to run for one of the many uncontested local elections in their area. By the time you need your guns, you’ve already lost. It’s much easier, and much more likely, to change the system slowly and deliberately. That’s not to say you shouldn’t protest, or even strike, but there is so much unseized political power in America, and too much of it is simply because of apathy.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      If it ever came down to it, I think I lack the sangfroid to actually kill someone over a political disagreement. But I'd definitely throw him in an oubliette for a while and take his best stuff, especially if he got all his stuff by killing people or throwing them in oubliettes. Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Think about how blatantly unfair gerrymandering is, how unpopular it is, and how prevalent it remains in spite of that. It's almost as if the system is designed to capture the energy of passionate dissidents and dissipate it, such that it cannot be used to perform useful work. The wild goose chase and the snipe hunt are revered traditions for tiring people out and redirecting their energy into useless effort. It's not entirely apathy. It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. The money follows the power that follows the money. Your side isn't going to win unless you can use your energy efficiently. You're metaphorically taking on the role of the casino complaining that fewer people want to play the games that give you a 5% house advantage, instead of the ones that only give you a 0.5% house advantage. Nobody wants to play a game they can't win in the long run. They pick up the gun to say "this game is over, let's play another." If the game were actually fair, it could go on forever without permanent winners or losers.
simonbarker87 9y ago
The rise of the Labour Party in the early 1900s era in the UK is a non violent example of this to some extent. It was helped by the 2 world wars so there was violence and upheaval but not directly to buck the system in the UK. Bolshevism happened at the same time is Russia but that was pretty violent.
gt_ 9y ago
Good question. I recommend the podcast Economic Update: https://player.fm/series/economic-update-with-richard-d-wolff https://player.fm/series/economic-update-with-richard-d-wolf... It’s also available on iTunes and all the podcast apps. For books, read Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher. It’s a short read, too! While there are many recent books of nuanced interested in what created these problems, books on how to fix them are fairly unnecessary. Just be open minded, honest and stop rewarding perspectives which by all accounts appear to have created the current problems.
- aklemm 9y ago
  Do you have the right link there? There seems to be a defunct podcast at that link but an active one by Richard D. Wolff available by searching.
  - gt_ 9y ago
    It’s the same one as far as I can tell but I changed the link to player.fm which might be a bit more clear.
tabeth 9y ago
Revolution and violence tend to be the solution.
r00fus 9y ago
High progressive taxes at the top end with lots of loopholes for things society benefits from (which could be seen as a form of enforced noblesse oblige) You know, like what the US had in the 50s-70s. The kind that France and other european countries have had for a long time as well. Large corporate taxes are useful too - it forces companies to reinvest (as reinvested profits are not taxed).
- refurb 9y ago
  If you look at the effective tax rate for the highest earns it's higher now than in the 50-70's. Sure the rates were higher, but the tax code closed a ton of "loopholes" since then.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    This is untrue. In the heyday it looks like the 1% were paying about 7-8% more in effective taxes than today. Take a look at this Slate article which includes data: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/08/07/the_history_of_tax_rates_for_the_rich.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/08/07/the_history_o... "So the real tax rates rich Americans paid in the 1950s may not have been so stratospherically high as some progressives assume. But they also may have helped create a more egalitarian society. That seems worth considering." Mainly by removing the massive incentive for increased wealth past a tax threshold. 1% households back then made much less than today.
    - refurb 9y ago
      Don't forget the impact of the economy in general. The effective rate is dependent on income and during recessions the effective rate decreases as incomes decrease. This set of data shows the effective rate for the top 1% isn't that much lower than it was in the 1950's (baring the recession in 2008) and much higher than they were in the 1980's when Reagan gave his "tax cuts to the wealthy". https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170804133536/Average-Effective-Tax-Rate-on-the-Top-1-Percent-of-U.S.-Households.png https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170804133536/Average-Effec...
fabianhjr 9y ago
> This is as good a place as any, do you guys have any readings on 'winner take all'-ification and/or how to reverse it? Pop Culture Detective - Sociological Storytelling ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1-vPQKwXbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1-vPQKwXbY ) Platform Capitalism by Nick Srnicek ( http://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509504862 http://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509504862 )
humanrebar 9y ago
> ...do you guys have any readings on 'winner take all'-ification and/or how to reverse it? Reduce the complexity of society so a good baker can make a good living by starting a bakery. Business success these days seems to hinge much more on secret knowledge (taxes, real estate, employment law, patent process, certifications, etc.) than just great execution on a simple idea. Complexity is a subsidy to the well-connected and masters of the arcane at the expense of everyone else.
refurb 9y ago
One key think to remember is that the people at the top or bottom aren't necessarily the same people year over year. Not sure where to find the data, but I'd love to see the churn rate by different income quintiles.
- fabianhjr 9y ago
  You can search for that data as social mobility.
- amdavidson 9y ago
  The answer is not much churn[0], rich stay rich and poor stay poor. Though the situation is not much different than it was a generation prior[1]. 0: http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/ http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobil... 1: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-americ...
maxerickson 9y ago
Tax capital and evaluate regulations in terms of who they benefit rather than whether they are "good for business".

maxxxxx 9y ago

This seems to be the trend throughout history. At the beginning people get to the top through merit and then they start believing that everything that happens is because of their greatness and they think they deserve an ever growing share of the economy. We are observing the creation of a new kind of aristocracy. Usually this gets only reverted through a big upheaval like a war, revolution or another big event. Then the the cycle starts new with different players.

JBlue42 9y ago
Yup. And we've seen the rumblings of this in the US in the past few years, on both sides. Too bad racism is our thing over 'class warfare'. Think that goes back to the everyone thinking their a temporarily inconvenienced millionaire thing.

bfrog 9y ago

It will fail when quality of life degrades quickly enough for the have nots (most of us). As in we can't afford a roof of the non-roach motel kind even with well above median wages (already true). Can't afford to get sick (been true). At what point do these sorts of situations go from "well, thats just the way things are now" to "burn this mother down" is playing the lotto, but I'd say the odds are moving towards "burn it down" on the daily.

logfromblammo 9y ago
I don't know... the blatantly corrupt behavior of several of the world's most prominent government officials has got me sharpening my peasant's pitchfork, refueling my castle-burning torch, and thinking "soon". But they have these fancy stab-resistant vests and flame-retardant castle treatments now, so I'm not entirely sure if I can accomplish anything significant without a howling, bloodthirsty mob behind me. It wasn't the existence of ultra-rich jerks. At least Jobs and Bezos could bring product to market. Those guys, I didn't have to worry about when I'm not buying from them. It's when the wealthies get involved in government and start changing the rules for their own benefit that makes me want to start weaving some head-catcher baskets. I can stand just being relatively poor compared to some other person. I can't stand being oppressed and exploited, or having my personal agency removed, by people incapable of even feigning empathy. Their mistake was not in being rich, but in allowing themselves to believe that wealth correlates with superiority. Right now, I'd put it at around a 2% chance of contagious civil unrest per calendar year in the US, and rising. Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. A lot of people are drooling over the special counsel investigations, and hoping to check a few trends with the midterm elections. The majority still wants peaceful resolution for their political issues, but a lot of people have given up on that. If it ever does flip to "burn it all down", that will go a lot faster than most people can react to it.
- tachyoff 9y ago
  > Few want to start anything, but many are willing to join in. And yet, nobody votes. Everyone is apparently so willing to participate in violent revolution (which typically ends badly, if you read history), but nobody wants to head over to a church or school on a Tuesday in August. Nobody wants to go to city council meetings. Nobody wants to run for one of the many uncontested local elections in their area. By the time you need your guns, you’ve already lost. It’s much easier, and much more likely, to change the system slowly and deliberately. That’s not to say you shouldn’t protest, or even strike, but there is so much unseized political power in America, and too much of it is simply because of apathy.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    If it ever came down to it, I think I lack the sangfroid to actually kill someone over a political disagreement. But I'd definitely throw him in an oubliette for a while and take his best stuff, especially if he got all his stuff by killing people or throwing them in oubliettes. Voting is easy. Participation is difficult. In most cases, the local political system has evolved to perpetuate the interests of those who have been in power the longest. Creating change is 100x more difficult than maintaining the status quo. And that built-in resistance to change is corruptible. Think about how blatantly unfair gerrymandering is, how unpopular it is, and how prevalent it remains in spite of that. It's almost as if the system is designed to capture the energy of passionate dissidents and dissipate it, such that it cannot be used to perform useful work. The wild goose chase and the snipe hunt are revered traditions for tiring people out and redirecting their energy into useless effort. It's not entirely apathy. It's a rejection of the established political system as the most efficient means of producing the desired effects. You can vote your whole life, and never see a speck of change until after you join a general strike or boycott. The money follows the power that follows the money. Your side isn't going to win unless you can use your energy efficiently. You're metaphorically taking on the role of the casino complaining that fewer people want to play the games that give you a 5% house advantage, instead of the ones that only give you a 0.5% house advantage. Nobody wants to play a game they can't win in the long run. They pick up the gun to say "this game is over, let's play another." If the game were actually fair, it could go on forever without permanent winners or losers.

simonbarker87 9y ago

The rise of the Labour Party in the early 1900s era in the UK is a non violent example of this to some extent. It was helped by the 2 world wars so there was violence and upheaval but not directly to buck the system in the UK. Bolshevism happened at the same time is Russia but that was pretty violent.

gt_ 9y ago

Good question. I recommend the podcast Economic Update: https://player.fm/series/economic-update-with-richard-d-wolff https://player.fm/series/economic-update-with-richard-d-wolf... It’s also available on iTunes and all the podcast apps. For books, read Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher. It’s a short read, too! While there are many recent books of nuanced interested in what created these problems, books on how to fix them are fairly unnecessary. Just be open minded, honest and stop rewarding perspectives which by all accounts appear to have created the current problems.

aklemm 9y ago
Do you have the right link there? There seems to be a defunct podcast at that link but an active one by Richard D. Wolff available by searching.
- gt_ 9y ago
  It’s the same one as far as I can tell but I changed the link to player.fm which might be a bit more clear.

tabeth 9y ago

Revolution and violence tend to be the solution.

r00fus 9y ago

High progressive taxes at the top end with lots of loopholes for things society benefits from (which could be seen as a form of enforced noblesse oblige) You know, like what the US had in the 50s-70s. The kind that France and other european countries have had for a long time as well. Large corporate taxes are useful too - it forces companies to reinvest (as reinvested profits are not taxed).

refurb 9y ago
If you look at the effective tax rate for the highest earns it's higher now than in the 50-70's. Sure the rates were higher, but the tax code closed a ton of "loopholes" since then.
- r00fus 9y ago
  This is untrue. In the heyday it looks like the 1% were paying about 7-8% more in effective taxes than today. Take a look at this Slate article which includes data: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/08/07/the_history_of_tax_rates_for_the_rich.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/08/07/the_history_o... "So the real tax rates rich Americans paid in the 1950s may not have been so stratospherically high as some progressives assume. But they also may have helped create a more egalitarian society. That seems worth considering." Mainly by removing the massive incentive for increased wealth past a tax threshold. 1% households back then made much less than today.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Don't forget the impact of the economy in general. The effective rate is dependent on income and during recessions the effective rate decreases as incomes decrease. This set of data shows the effective rate for the top 1% isn't that much lower than it was in the 1950's (baring the recession in 2008) and much higher than they were in the 1980's when Reagan gave his "tax cuts to the wealthy". https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170804133536/Average-Effective-Tax-Rate-on-the-Top-1-Percent-of-U.S.-Households.png https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170804133536/Average-Effec...

fabianhjr 9y ago

> This is as good a place as any, do you guys have any readings on 'winner take all'-ification and/or how to reverse it? Pop Culture Detective - Sociological Storytelling ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1-vPQKwXbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1-vPQKwXbY ) Platform Capitalism by Nick Srnicek ( http://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509504862 http://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509504862 )

humanrebar 9y ago

> ...do you guys have any readings on 'winner take all'-ification and/or how to reverse it? Reduce the complexity of society so a good baker can make a good living by starting a bakery. Business success these days seems to hinge much more on secret knowledge (taxes, real estate, employment law, patent process, certifications, etc.) than just great execution on a simple idea. Complexity is a subsidy to the well-connected and masters of the arcane at the expense of everyone else.

refurb 9y ago

One key think to remember is that the people at the top or bottom aren't necessarily the same people year over year. Not sure where to find the data, but I'd love to see the churn rate by different income quintiles.

fabianhjr 9y ago
You can search for that data as social mobility.
amdavidson 9y ago
The answer is not much churn[0], rich stay rich and poor stay poor. Though the situation is not much different than it was a generation prior[1]. 0: http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/ http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobil... 1: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-americ...

maxerickson 9y ago

Tax capital and evaluate regulations in terms of who they benefit rather than whether they are "good for business".