4 ms·

Not to mention a _huge_ [1][2] increase in wealth inequality over the past 30 years as well. Instead of progressive taxes and taxing the rich more, you end up

Not to mention a _huge_ [1][2] increase in wealth inequality over the past 30 years as well. Instead of progressive taxes and taxing the rich more, you end up instead with tax _breaks_ for the richest and regressive taxes instead (tariffs, which are effectively a national sales tax). I guess the current tactic is to distract people with "those terrible immigrants are at fault" and DOGE and constant policy changes. [1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/#the-wealth-divide-among-upper-income-families-and-middle-and-lower-income-families-is-sharp-and-rising https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-... [2]: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/#the-richest-are-getting-richer-faster https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-...

mcguire 1y ago
The usual HN response to wealth inequality is "why do you care how much they have?" The answer is, of course, that money is power and the power that many of the wealthy are exercising is not to the benefit of most people.
- MegaButts 1y ago
  You don't even need to think about money as power, you can just think about money as money. There's a far simpler way to think about wealth inequality. If you believe it's a problem, by definition the people holding the wealth are the cause of the problem. This isn't some social or philosophical construct - it's just basic deduction. So quite literally, the wealthy holding the money means less money to go around to everyone else. The more they hold themselves, the more is withheld from everyone else. You can have debates about wealth distribution endlessly because it's subjective and complicated, but you can't argue that the wealthy getting richer is good for anyone except the wealthy. Trickle-down-economics has already been established as propaganda at this point. I understand that wealth is not static in the world and it's possible to create wealth for everyone, but my point is money hoarding is definitionally the cause of wealth inequality.
  - analog31 1y ago
    I get what you say -- hoarded wealth is essentially idle. But I think there's more to it. The people who hold that wealth prefer to live in one country, and have inflicted themselves on the governance of that country.
    - stock_toaster 1y ago
      > hoarded wealth is essentially idle This is, I think, a blind spot for most people. Hoarded wealth isn't idle at all. At the _very least_ it accrues interest (and compounds!) and grows!
      - analog31 1y ago
        Indeed, and if it's hoarded in the form of land, then the land definitely accrues political power.
    - MegaButts 1y ago
      > I get what you say -- hoarded wealth is essentially idle. I'm not talking at all about wealth being idle in my previous comment. My point is entirely that the more money the rich have, the less money the poor have. What you're bringing up is how the wealthy use their money to change their political environment to benefit themselves. This is also a problem, but is parallel to the point I was making.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        > My point is entirely that the more money the rich have, the less money the poor have. I'm curious how Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon/Netflix/etc have transferred money out of your bank account to their hoards. Personally, I've transferred money to them, but only for things I wanted to buy from them and thought was worth the money.
        MegaButts 1y ago
        You are replying to every single comment - you seem really upset about this. I never said anything was stolen from me. I said wealth inequality is the result of rich people holding money, because by definition there can be no wealth inequality without rich people. It's an objective statement and you're projecting so much political vitriol onto it.
- technofiend 1y ago
  Particularly after Citizens United, money has squelched voter influence in favor of a few large donors. People don't seem to realize however imperfect the choices are, actively voting against this agenda instead of giving up and hoping it'll somehow work out will fail.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Kamala outspent Trump by about 3:1 in the last election. Money didn't buy it.
    - stock_toaster 1y ago
      Are you sure? We certainly didn't end up with Bernie on the Democrat ballot. Just because team-R beat team-D doesn't mean both weren't being driven by huge amounts of special interest money from the wealthiest individuals.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        I doubt Bernie is electable no matter how much he spends.
    - dmonitor 1y ago
      Elon buying twitter and changing the algorithm to support him probably isn't included in this calculation
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        Ironically, Elon tried to back out of the deal and the liberals forced him to buy it. Take into account that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, NYT, NPR, etc., were all solidly in the Democrat camp, the Democrats didn't need to fund them.
- forgotoldacc 1y ago
  One easy thing you can do on HN is replace "they" with "we" in a lot of those instances. HN has a lot of good people. HN also has a lot of people who consider themselves supporters of meritocracy and see everything they've achieved as solely a result of their own hard work. HN also has a lot of people with absolutely mind blowing levels of wealth. HN also has a lot of people who, saying it as kindly as I can, just do not know what life is like for a normal person.
IX-103 1y ago
More than 30 years, it's closer to 50. I actually wonder how much of the stagflation in the 1970s was caused by tax cuts for the rich. It would make sense, if you think about it. If rich people spent more on luxuries, then the free market would naturally move resources away from creating necessities. This results in a shortage of necessities, resulting in higher prices. There's no increase in productivity caused by just shuffling jobs around, so the economy would be relatively stagnant. I'm not saying the oil crisis wasn't a major factor, but I'm curious how much of it was from voodoo economics...
- stock_toaster 1y ago
  > If rich people spent more on luxuries, then the free market would naturally move resources away from creating necessities. This results in a shortage of necessities, resulting in higher prices. There's no increase in productivity caused by just shuffling jobs around, so the economy would be relatively stagnant I agree. And further, the whole concept of "trickle down economics" always seemed like a propaganda scam to me -- I mean, how much _do_ the exceptionally wealthy even spend when going about their daily lives? And how much of that just ends up going to other super wealthy people anyway (private jets, yachts, fashion, etc)? It isn't like they are buying millions of dollars worth of locally sourced items in their communities every day of the year.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > how much _do_ the exceptionally wealthy even spend when going about their daily lives? They invest in companies. Take a look at the annual report for any public corporation. The category of "Expenses" is what gets spent on plant, equipment, salaries, interest, etc. Roughly speaking, "Profit" is Revenue minus Expenses. Profit accrues to the investors. If the Profit turns out to be less than zero, that loss is attached to the investors. > It isn't like they are buying millions of dollars worth of locally sourced items in their communities every day of the year. The companies they invest in do.
    - fakedang 1y ago

mcguire 1y ago

The usual HN response to wealth inequality is "why do you care how much they have?" The answer is, of course, that money is power and the power that many of the wealthy are exercising is not to the benefit of most people.

MegaButts 1y ago
You don't even need to think about money as power, you can just think about money as money. There's a far simpler way to think about wealth inequality. If you believe it's a problem, by definition the people holding the wealth are the cause of the problem. This isn't some social or philosophical construct - it's just basic deduction. So quite literally, the wealthy holding the money means less money to go around to everyone else. The more they hold themselves, the more is withheld from everyone else. You can have debates about wealth distribution endlessly because it's subjective and complicated, but you can't argue that the wealthy getting richer is good for anyone except the wealthy. Trickle-down-economics has already been established as propaganda at this point. I understand that wealth is not static in the world and it's possible to create wealth for everyone, but my point is money hoarding is definitionally the cause of wealth inequality.
- analog31 1y ago
  I get what you say -- hoarded wealth is essentially idle. But I think there's more to it. The people who hold that wealth prefer to live in one country, and have inflicted themselves on the governance of that country.
  - stock_toaster 1y ago
    > hoarded wealth is essentially idle This is, I think, a blind spot for most people. Hoarded wealth isn't idle at all. At the _very least_ it accrues interest (and compounds!) and grows!
    - analog31 1y ago
      Indeed, and if it's hoarded in the form of land, then the land definitely accrues political power.
  - MegaButts 1y ago
    > I get what you say -- hoarded wealth is essentially idle. I'm not talking at all about wealth being idle in my previous comment. My point is entirely that the more money the rich have, the less money the poor have. What you're bringing up is how the wealthy use their money to change their political environment to benefit themselves. This is also a problem, but is parallel to the point I was making.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      > My point is entirely that the more money the rich have, the less money the poor have. I'm curious how Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon/Netflix/etc have transferred money out of your bank account to their hoards. Personally, I've transferred money to them, but only for things I wanted to buy from them and thought was worth the money.
      - MegaButts 1y ago
        You are replying to every single comment - you seem really upset about this. I never said anything was stolen from me. I said wealth inequality is the result of rich people holding money, because by definition there can be no wealth inequality without rich people. It's an objective statement and you're projecting so much political vitriol onto it.
technofiend 1y ago
Particularly after Citizens United, money has squelched voter influence in favor of a few large donors. People don't seem to realize however imperfect the choices are, actively voting against this agenda instead of giving up and hoping it'll somehow work out will fail.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Kamala outspent Trump by about 3:1 in the last election. Money didn't buy it.
  - stock_toaster 1y ago
    Are you sure? We certainly didn't end up with Bernie on the Democrat ballot. Just because team-R beat team-D doesn't mean both weren't being driven by huge amounts of special interest money from the wealthiest individuals.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      I doubt Bernie is electable no matter how much he spends.
  - dmonitor 1y ago
    Elon buying twitter and changing the algorithm to support him probably isn't included in this calculation
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      Ironically, Elon tried to back out of the deal and the liberals forced him to buy it. Take into account that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, NYT, NPR, etc., were all solidly in the Democrat camp, the Democrats didn't need to fund them.
forgotoldacc 1y ago
One easy thing you can do on HN is replace "they" with "we" in a lot of those instances. HN has a lot of good people. HN also has a lot of people who consider themselves supporters of meritocracy and see everything they've achieved as solely a result of their own hard work. HN also has a lot of people with absolutely mind blowing levels of wealth. HN also has a lot of people who, saying it as kindly as I can, just do not know what life is like for a normal person.

IX-103 1y ago

More than 30 years, it's closer to 50. I actually wonder how much of the stagflation in the 1970s was caused by tax cuts for the rich. It would make sense, if you think about it. If rich people spent more on luxuries, then the free market would naturally move resources away from creating necessities. This results in a shortage of necessities, resulting in higher prices. There's no increase in productivity caused by just shuffling jobs around, so the economy would be relatively stagnant. I'm not saying the oil crisis wasn't a major factor, but I'm curious how much of it was from voodoo economics...

stock_toaster 1y ago
> If rich people spent more on luxuries, then the free market would naturally move resources away from creating necessities. This results in a shortage of necessities, resulting in higher prices. There's no increase in productivity caused by just shuffling jobs around, so the economy would be relatively stagnant I agree. And further, the whole concept of "trickle down economics" always seemed like a propaganda scam to me -- I mean, how much _do_ the exceptionally wealthy even spend when going about their daily lives? And how much of that just ends up going to other super wealthy people anyway (private jets, yachts, fashion, etc)? It isn't like they are buying millions of dollars worth of locally sourced items in their communities every day of the year.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > how much _do_ the exceptionally wealthy even spend when going about their daily lives? They invest in companies. Take a look at the annual report for any public corporation. The category of "Expenses" is what gets spent on plant, equipment, salaries, interest, etc. Roughly speaking, "Profit" is Revenue minus Expenses. Profit accrues to the investors. If the Profit turns out to be less than zero, that loss is attached to the investors. > It isn't like they are buying millions of dollars worth of locally sourced items in their communities every day of the year. The companies they invest in do.
  - fakedang 1y ago