
Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016 - Excluse
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016
======
chiaro
This sure seems to be HN's flavor of the month (and possibly for good reason).
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not
discovered. LLC's and Delaware C-Corps didn't materialise out of the aether,
nor did the property rights regarding their shares. I dislike the concept of
"deserving" at the best of times, but under this light, those that are the
most successful reap their rewards largely in relation to how this system is
established. Taxing large profits is no more "unnatural" than protecting the
right to these profits in the first place.

That said, with regards to the article, appealing to businesses as moral
actors is only so effective. A business acting unethically but legally is most
rectifiably a problem with the law, rather than the business.

~~~
MacsHeadroom
>One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that markets are created, not
discovered.

Probably because most capitalists don't believe this?

>nor did the property rights regarding their shares.

Debatable. Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist and
that "shares" are simply an agreed upon way of dividing property rights over a
complexity of assets and agreements (i.e. a business).

>Taxing large profits is no more "unnatural" than protecting the right to
these profits in the first place.

True. Obviously a laissez-faire capitalists would say they're both unnatural-
as they would say most, if not all, concepts created via legislative action
are also "unnatural." Of course, people don't typically expend effort fighting
"unnatural" injustice that benefits them- especially when money is on the
line, and even more so state protected stock holder money.

>A business acting unethically but legally is most rectifiably a problem with
the law,

Since when is it the legislature's job to enforce morality?

~~~
Frondo
"Most capitalists would say that property rights naturally exist ..."

I would like those capitalists to show me the "property rights" molecule.

~~~
Animats
The concept of "property rights without responsibility" is a Roman invention.
There are alternatives. US law takes property rights more seriously than most
other countries, because the US never had to get rid of feudalism. Also, one
of the few lawbooks available in the early days of the US was Blackstone, who
was a property rights absolutist.

In feudalism, land ownership implies the obligation to protect the inhabitants
and gives them certain rights. One remnant of this is that, in Britain, you
have the right to walk on the undeveloped private property of others. Also,
most European countries afford renters much stronger rights than the US does.

Many nomadic societies, from the Mongols to native Americans, don't recognize
the right to own real estate you're not currently using. Sharia law has the
concept that land can be unowned by anyone, and can revert to that state if
unused, although many Islamic countries do not do that in practice.

So no, property rights do not stem from "natural law".

~~~
Houshalter
The comment you are replying to isn't disagreeing with you.

The people who believe property rights are "natural" aren't saying they aren't
a human creation at all. Just that they are a human right, like other rights
that are also human creations.

The justification for this is something like you own your labor and slavery is
wrong, and if you use your labor to produce something, it's unfair for anyone
to take it from you. Likewise it's your right to trade it for something
someone else made, or do whatever. And from that you get capitalism and
property rights as we know them.

However this argument doesn't cover property rights over natural resources or
land. There are some arguments for that like the homesteading principle. But
in general there is an argument to be made that natural resources should be
publicly owned, or at least rented with the profits going to the public.

Also this argument is deontological. A consequentialist would say if violating
someone's rights helps more people than it hurts, you should do it anyway. And
an economist would point out that pure property rights don't work in the first
place, because of market failures like public goods, common goods, information
asymmetry, natural monopolies, etc. So everyone is better off if we violate
them at least a little.

~~~
djhn
> But in general there is an argument to be made that natural resources should
> be publicly owned, or at least rented with the profits going to the public.

First made famous by Henry George, if anyone is interested.

An interesting use-case for cryptocurrencies/blockchain-like technology.

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
Also see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism)

------
ekianjo
Yet poverty as a whole is decreasing according to numerous measures.

Plus their report contradicts the world bank observations:
[http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Glob...](http://ourworldindata.org/VisualHistoryOf/Poverty.html#/Global-
Income-Distribution-2011)

Which is not surprising since Oxfam has a clear political agenda.

EDIT: world bank poverty report, clearly showing the decreasing poverty rates
globally:
[http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/G...](http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/gmr/gmr2014/GMR_2014_Full_Report.pdf)

~~~
gozur88
>Yet poverty as a whole is decreasing according to numerous measures.

Yep. You lift people out of poverty through growth, something capitalists are
very good at.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Indeed witness the successes of Brazil! A country under the direction of US
capitalism since 1964" with massive natural resources, no nearby enemies ...
It's got very dire poverty and extreme wealth inequality.

Vs the countries in Eastern Europe with none of those advantages. Most
Brazilians would kill to live like an average person from there.

~~~
pingou
I don't understand your point, poverty in Eastern Europe has fallen
tremendously after the switch to capitalism, but you're saying it has nothing
to do with it?

Inequalities might have risen a bit though, I don't know.

~~~
saiya-jin
yeah, he really cut his own branch very efficiently... we had central planning
(with heavy guidance from those f _ckers from Moscow that invaded us in '68)
that just didn't work in long term. People were considering bananas and
oranges exotic hard-to-get stock in shops with empty shelves. I recall my
parents standing 2 hour queues in crazy weekend hours in -15 Celsius just to
get their son some fruit with vitamin C (or fresh bread).

Capitalism ain't perfect, far from it, but what we had here was a major
clusterf_ck, no thank you. And what changed is move to open economy, call it
capitalism if you want. With its own warts and issues, but much better
overall.

Previous regime got the worst out of people, this at least tries to do the
opposite.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Compared to Brazil where people starve to death, life expectancy is way lower,
educational standards, medical standards, virtually every social measurement
is way lower.

------
bobby_9x
What about actors? The top 1% of actors make more than the rest of the actors
combined. Is this fair? Should we tell Tom Cruise that he needs to take 80% of
his paycheck for the next Mission Impossible movie and redistribute it to the
actors that are not well-known and aren't making as much?

How about something more relevant, like startups: Should it be fair that only
1% of startups make more than any of the other startups combined? Unicorns
like Uber and Airbnb should take their profits and spread them around to
startups that failed!

Yes, there is inequality, but I don't necessarily a bad thing. It's the
natural form of most free marketplaces and systems.

~~~
fsloth
Inequality happens automatically if there is no control. I.e. _someone_ will
have way more than others, and not because they created value and are just
capturing portions of it. Exceptional value generating individuals are not the
norm, they are the exception.

Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents, and
interests on investments.

~~~
ekianjo
> Most money is acquired through luck, inheritance, network effects, rents,
> and interests on investments.

Inheritance -> heavily taxed about everywhere.

rents -> you need capital in the first place to secure rents, so it means that
somebody has produced some work in the first place to get it.

Interests on investment exist to allow your money to be useful to other people
trying new things and building their businesses. So it's a positive enabler.

Not sure what you were trying to demonstrate.

~~~
fsloth
Rebuking the notion that all wealth is earned through directly creating value.

For instance, the biggest reason top actors in hollywood succeed in capturing
so much value is because starting in the late 1970's CAA ([1]) moved leverage
in negotiations towards actors, not because they are so much better actors. If
talent had less leverage, they would create as much value if they were paid
less, but studios and their owners would capture the value.

Economy is a wealth creation platform but it does not come with an automatic
"fair scoring" system.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ovitz](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ovitz)

------
srgseg
I feel the serious point Oxfam are looking to make is let down by a definition
of wealth that is very distorted.

Their headline is based on a report by Credit Suisse [1] which defines net
worth as: "the marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets
(principally housing and land) less debts."

Consider two people who will earn exactly the same amount of money at every
stage of their lives. But one is 18 and has just started working, the other is
65 and has just retired. Is the 65 year old really 1000x richer than the 18
year old, because the 18 year old has saved $100 so far and the 65 year old
has had time to save $100,000? Is this really 1000x inequality? For the
purposes of determining inequality, these people should be considered equal,
because it's simply the case that one person is older and has had more time to
save.

A fair assessment of a person's wealth, at least when determining fairness and
inequality, should include more than this. It should include an estimate of
their future earnings potential plus the social security/welfare state
entitlements and state pensions that they are entitled to.

Otherwise you have hundreds of millions of people in the West with negative
"wealth" who in reality will enjoy a far wealthier life than someone in the
developing world with small positive financial assets and no debt.

Someone with $100 in assets and no debt does not get to claim that they are
single handedly "richer" than the combined net worth of tens of millions of
university graduates that each have a total career earnings potential of
millions of dollars, but who each still have outstanding student debt and thus
negative net worth.

Also see this article on the "the wealthy living paycheck to paycheck" [2]
which points out that people that will enjoy very wealthy lifestyles are
spending rather than saving their income, and therefore really are rich yet
will be written off as being far "poorer" than others in terms of financial
assets.

[1] [http://publications.credit-
suisse.com/tasks/render/file/inde...](http://publications.credit-
suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=C26E3824-E868-56E0-CCA04D4BB9B9ADD5)
[2] [http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/25/wealthy-
amer...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/25/wealthy-americans-
living-paycheck-to-paycheck-income-paying-bills)

~~~
netcan
Any simple definition is distorted, inevitably.

Income, consumption or utility have a case. That said, wealth by this
definition is most relevant in certain contexts. If you're worried about
political consequences, for example. When the majority of property-wealth
belongs to a small minority the majority have less reason to preserve property
rights, for example.

~~~
srgseg
The availability of credit will allow those that are asset poor but with
reasonable earnings potential to compete for resources fairly.

There are of course very serious implications when, for example, asset bubbles
and unfunded state liabilities will create unfairness between generations.
That's an example of real inequality. There are many other forms of real
inequality. Fake inequality is when two people with comparable earnings and
abilities to purchase assets are treated as not equal simply because one is
older and has had longer to save.

~~~
netcan
I agree that income and (current) wealth are often fungible. The main reason I
think wealth is usually reported because real income figures are hard to come
by. If we want to look at the extreme end, current property and not income is
the only option.

But, I think wealth (above definition) may be important as a stand alone. Many
of the political implications of wealth disparity have more to do with current
wealth than income, for example.

I do think you have a point though, as I said. Some wealth disparity is a
matter of age, for example. But the disparities we have and those we project
are very large. They may overstate disparities in income and consumption taken
alone, but I don't think it's more clear headed to dismiss them outright. They
do indicate a real and growing disparity.

------
lifeisstillgood
"The existence of a billionaire is a clear indicator of one or more market
failures"

I have been banging this around my head for a while since PG's infamous essay.
There are plenty of reasons to see wildly successful people as talented,
special etc. But nowhere near enough to believe them to be superhuman. Nor as
rare as might be expected.

Becoming a billionaire (or member of top 1% or what have you) is not something
that can only be achieved by a certain fraction of the population, like being
over 6'6'

There must be market distortions that fail to share out the vast wealth of the
Russian oilfields? Similarly for not sharing the license fees of MSWord or the
markup on Amazon books.

Maybe PG is right and we need thousands more entrepreneurs out for themselves,
and we shall see the inequalities of the world sort themselves out through
"market" action.

Which would mean still we need politicos action (why not more female
entrepreneurs? What about highly regulated industries?)

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
I would take a close look at feedback loops from wealth. The very poor is to
poor to change anything, while the very rich can change laws and dictate world
wide sentiments.

In the end the inequalities of power destroys any linear correlation between
skill and income that might otherwise manifest.

Traditionally we've been looking at the lower end of the power distribution to
mitigate this (unions, minimum wage, micro loans and so forth) it might be
prudent to look at the other end (property laws, corporations, finance and so
forth) with similar intentions.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I dont disagree - market distortions can be found anywhere. And ending them
will both end billionaires and likely increase equality (less billionaires
means more money to spread between everyone else)

------
brandonmenc
> Members of this global elite had an average wealth of $2.7 million per adult
> in 2014.

I know plenty of people in their 60s who simply busted their asses at middle-
class jobs while saving their pennies who are members of this "global elite."

~~~
onion2k
I don't think you do.

The median income in the USA is $52,000. Assuming that a middle-class job pays
3* that amount, and that someone can reasonably save 30% of their salary for
the last 20 years they work, that amounts to about $1m saved. Probably a lot
less because a person's salary isn't at it's peak for much of their career.
Even factoring for a household with 2 incomes at that level you don't get to
$2.7m.

I imagine the people you know _are_ members of the elite as you say, but they
got there by by having elite jobs and by investing their elite incomes. If you
think they're in the "middle-class" you have a somewhat distorted view of the
world.

~~~
brandonmenc
I think you're not understanding that the American middle class covers quite a
wide range of wealth and income.

You'd probably also be surprised at just how many millionaires who used to
work in factories there are. 40 years of union wages, plus pension, plus
investing in a mutual fund. I obviously can't prove it here, but I'm from a
blue-collar factory city and trust me, some of those people have multi-million
dollar retirement funds.

Granted, you can't replicate that kind of success today, but there are people
who didn't work "elite" jobs in possession of millions.

~~~
dnautics
Probably also because the prosperity of those blue collar workers came about
by pumping the economy by borrowing from the future. Interest rates were 16%+
in the early 80s, you could have bought a middle class house and refi'd 2
times (at 8%,4%) and basically get two free houses. With interest rates zero
or near zero, current middle class individuals will not be able to repeat this
feat.

------
rboyd
Strange to see a Rothschild speak out against inequality.

(FTA) Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild [...] said: “Oxfam’s report is just the
latest evidence that inequality has reached shocking extremes, and continues
to grow. It is time for the global leaders of modern capitalism, in addition
to our politicians, to work to change the system to make it more inclusive,
more equitable and more sustainable."

~~~
dredmorbius
You may have heard of Amartya Sen, welfare economist specialising especially
in inequality and poverty.

His wife, I learned recently, is Emma Georgina Rothschild.

So: not all that improbable.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen)

------
jqm
2.7 million puts one in the richest 1%? Unexpected, but I guess it makes
sense. There are still a lot of very poor in the world.

I started to think "injustice" when I saw the article, but 2.7 million will
barely buy a nice house in some parts of the US. I suppose in some ways wealth
is still relative.

I guess I'm more curious about what percentage of world assets the .001%
control.

~~~
asuffield
Where did you find that 2.7m number? The most recent data is the Credit Suisse
2015 set, which you can see here:

[https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/about-
us/research/resear...](https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/about-
us/research/research-institute/news-and-videos/articles/news-and-
expertise/2015/10/en/global-wealth-in-2015-underlying-trends-remain-
positive.html)

They put the 1% line at $760k, and that's net worth: include the value of your
home, subtract your debts.

I'm pretty unhappy about this oxfam article. It talks about "the richest 1%"
and "the billionaires" alongside each other as if these groups were even
remotely similar. This is furthering the myth of some kind of group of "shady
rich people" who are behind the global financial conspiracy. Reality check: if
you're reading this, you're almost certainly in the top 10% ($68,845 in total
assets). According to the same data set, the median wealth in the US is $50k,
so about half the population is in the top ten percent. You are the rich
people this article is talking about.

Comparing the "richest 80 billionaires" to the bottom 50% is similarly
misleading, because the bottom 50% has about 0.5% of the global wealth (which
I think roughly answers your question about the top 0.001%). If you lined up
the top 80 billionaires, shot them all, and redistributed all their wealth to
the bottom 50%, then those people would still be in extreme poverty.

There are serious global wealth inequality problems, and this oxfam article
doesn't really talk about them at all, and instead tries to perpetuate a
popular meme. I strongly suggest that people skip it and read the Credit
Suisse report instead - the data tells a much more interesting story.

Here are the numbers which the oxfam article doesn't mention, and should:

85.65% of the global wealth is held by the top 10% of the population, which is
477m people, of which 113m are in the US, with second place going to Japan at
58m.

32.3% of global wealth is held by the middle class (defined as $50k to $500k
wealth); 92.4% is held by the middle class or above. 37% is in the US. Africa,
India, and Latin America together represent about 4%.

~~~
jqm
2.7 million is from the article. But looking back you are right, it's an
average not a cutoff.

------
tokenadult
A good response to this[1] was posted here on Hacker News, but so far it
languishes unread, with too few upvotes to promote it from the new submissions
page. Take a look for a specific response to the article kindly submitted to
open this active thread.

[1] "What Oxfam won’t tell you about capitalism and poverty"

[http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-
yo...](http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-you-about-
capitalism-and-poverty/)

------
Paradigma11
On the other hand every single person of the richest 90% owns at least as much
as the whole poorest one-third does.

Heck, even i do. So i own as much as 2 400 000 000 people do in total.
[https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachm...](https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/ib-
data-wealth-having-all-wanting-more-190115-en.xlsx)

At least a court helped the poorest person on earth last year: "In March 2014,
a French high court upheld Kerviel's prison sentence but ruled he would not
have to repay €4.9bn"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel)
So there is still hope left.

------
fiatmoney
If you simply conflate "richest" with "most powerful", this is already the
case, and has been for most of human history. It's unclear why we should care
about monetary wealth specifically more than other dimensions of power.

~~~
chiaro
Probably because it's very easy to measure, and correlates with other
dimensions through well known adjustments like Purchasing Power.

------
ps4fanboy
The global economy is in a transitional period, computerization has made
inequality rise, but also Women working has led to higher inequality among
families, Robotics and further automation of current industries will make
things much worse for the people currently alive. There isnt a clear solution,
what will ultimately happen is people working less and a higher percentage
working in higher skilled jobs.

------
T2_t2
So I assume everyone downloaded the PDF AND the excel? Good, so lets get to
the numbers:

My problems:

1\. Percentages: the article talks in percentages, as if something tangible
was lost from 50-45%. Here is the table of wealth by year in total vs the
bottom 50%:

year Total($bil) 50% ($bn)

2000 $117,052.00 $702.31

2001 $113,390.00 $793.73

2002 $122,757.00 $859.30

2003 $147,566.00 $1,032.96

2004 $166,018.00 $1,162.13

2005 $171,182.00 $1,198.27

2006 $195,941.00 $1,763.47

2007 $220,043.00 $2,200.43

2008 $189,877.00 $1,708.89

2009 $205,656.00 $1,850.90

2010 $216,084.00 $2,593.01

2011 $224,382.00 $2,243.82

2012 $238,089.00 $2,142.80

2013 $255,620.00 $1,789.34

2014 $263,242.00 $1,842.69

    
    
        +224.89% +262.38%
    

The wealth of the bottom 50% had tripled by 2010, even 2012, and has fallen
off in the years since 2010. Taking the 2014 reduced numbers, that is still a
262% increase in 14 years. In contrast, the TOTAL economy has grown 224.89%
since 2000. Why is THAT not the story? "Global share of bottom 50% growing
faster than the world economy" doesn't fit the narrative perchance?

Besides which, isn't that F^$%^&$ing amazing! That the bottom 50% areover 2
and a half times richer. That is world changing for the people it affects,
surely? Yet the story is the rich have more. Really, "Rich have more" is the
story? I can't wait for "water is wet" as installment 2.

More importantly, why is the story not the drop from 2010 to 2014? What was
that?

So I sought out the source: [https://publications.credit-
suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi...](https://publications.credit-
suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4) and
it appears that the wealth in the bottom 50% is made up mostly of mostly of
two things (see figure 8, page 12): 1\. Poor nations - e.g. Africa and,
largest of all, India which accounts "... for over a quarter of people in the
bottom half of the distribution". 2\. Ruch Americans in debt - the tail seems
skewed that way, to me at least.

If we take just India, they had a massive currency exchange problem vs the USD
since 2010. In 2010, it was 46.21 rupee to the dollar, in December 2014 it was
62.8
([http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=USD&to=INR&amount=1&yea...](http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=USD&to=INR&amount=1&year=2014)).
That is a drop of about a third in value. That is likely at least part of the
reason for the wealth drop.

2\. The percentage projection carries on from what looks like an historical
anomaly between 2010 and 2014. If the currency exchange reverses course, and
India claws back even 10% of the gap, the percentage to the 1% will likely
reverse to some degree.

3\. The data set for the rich changes dramatically. The minimum to be top 80
in 2014, would be top 15 in 2004. Zuckerberg appears out of nowhere in 2011,
adding a few billion (his wealth versus the 81st position) to the total from
nowhere. If Wallmart's founder had survived, we'd have a top 80 with 4 more
billionaires in it, making it an even larger a total. That's not really
indicative of anything (other than rich people can die too).

Look, I get Oxfam's political agenda, but I think a +262.38% increase in
wealth for the bottom 50% - even after what looks like a currency disaster
since 2010 - is amazing in and of itself, and any comparison to an arbitrary
set of extremely wealthy is just political machinations.

------
mercer
So, I know this is a complicated issue that has been discussion with a lot of
emotion and even anger. I find it very difficult to make any sense of it all,
because it strikes me that in every discussion some crucial things are mixed
up so much that the entire discussion strikes me as unproductive most of the
time. In single back and forth's, we mix up:

\- the meaning of words \- the specificity of the argument (say, actor income
versus a country versus the global economy) \- the ethical assumptions
underlying our argument \- the actual facts

Personally I've been raised, developed my thoughts and occupy an environment
that can be considered _strongly_ on 'the left' of the spectrum (yes, also
vague). That said, I really try to properly _understand_ the 'other' side(s).

But it's difficult, considering that my _entire_ world view is built on
assumptions, arguments, lines of reasoning that are built on 'facts' and
'knowledge' that is 'leftist'. My left-wing viewpoint is like a realist
painting while my right-wing viewpoint is more like a crude child's drawing.
So _obviously_ I'm more likely to reject the latter, and judge its proponents
harshly, because it seems so stupid and primitive.

So I guess my question is... How would I best go about developing a more
nuanced picture of the 'other' side(s) so that I can try to find 'truth' that
is not conveniently aligned with my upbringing and current viewpoints, however
difficult (or impossible) that might be?

I've been trying to subscribe to blogs that don't align with my views. I've
also been trying to look into philosophical views that seem to further this,
but I find it difficult because I don't really _know_ what axioms underly
these views so alien to me. So I don't always know where to look. I've been
trying to respectfully read economic or social arguments (including pg's
recent essay) that I have some fundamental issues with, but it all falls apart
through sheer complexity and ambiguity (see: the discussions here where half
the time people seem to discuss what pg _actually_ said). And whenever some
discussion _does_ go into 'facts', I'd really have to read the sources where
half the time I would need to study that particular field to even understand
the abstract, not to mention that I can't really check the accuracy of these
facts in the first place (and we all know that the further we get from the
'natural' sciences, the more ambiguous and slanted these facts become).

Here's the thing. I was raised an Evangelical Christian, and now I'm
(basically) an atheist. The difference between these two paradigms is huge.
I've _believed_ both these sides with full conviction, so I know in quite a
bit of detail how to defend many beliefs from either side. I feel that as a
result, I can often pinpoint at which point in an argument things diverge, and
I also feel I can reasonably choose in which direction to go. It also feels a
bit schizophrenic and uncomfortable.

But the only reason I can do this is that I've basically studied theology and
I've been immersed in this now-alien point of view for about 25 years, not
counting the period of overlap where I was very confused about matters.

Obviously I cannot do that with an issue such as this. So what _can_ I do,
aside from try to assume that the viewpoint alien to my own is probably not as
stupid or superficial as it seems? How can I assess a commenter's viewpoint
when I don't have any knowledge of their background, honestly, or expertise as
a _person_ (which I do feel is important. we _need_ to take shortcuts at some
point).

It's incredibly frustrating, but I don't want to get stuck in convictions that
I just happen to have chanced into, basically.

~~~
bsbechtel
It might be good to explore some of the books that are considered classics
with regards to free market capitalism. Adam Smith's writings, along with
Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, will give you a much more nuanced
understanding of the philosophies behind the ideas of the 'right'. The Road to
Serfdom is one I would suggest starting with. I think you will find some much
more powerful arguments for right wing economics from these authors than you
will find in most of today's writing on the subject as well. I think it will
help you think about the issues more clearly and independently as well (by
better understanding both sides), to come up with your own arguments. IMHO,
I've tried reading what are considered 'classics' of left wing economics, and
fail to find the same nuance, or arguments that are materially different from
what is written today. Of course this could be just my own opinion, so I would
love to hear your views after reading.

~~~
mercer
You know what, I'll actually do that. Would 'The Road to Serfdom' be
accessible enough to someone who has a relatively broad general knowledge, but
is mostly versed in psychology?

This might sound strange, but is there any chance you would be willing to
check up on my resolve in about a month? Just a quick email would be enough.
It's just that with everything else going on in my life currently, I'm likely
to forget even if I set a reminder or task...

(and I understand if you don't feel like doing this of course)

~~~
bsbechtel
I set a reminder on my phone for a month from now. I'll do my best to follow
up. TRTS is grounded in political/economic philosophy, as it was written
before economics had the analytical rigor it has today. Don't let that fool
you into thinking it is out of date and incorrect. Many things in the field of
economics and politics can't really be accurately measured (how do you really
measure how much a 1% tax increase affects future innovation and
entrepreneurship, if those innovations don't exist yet?) That being said, if
you can handle dense psychology books, you might need to re-read a few
paragraphs and sentences multiple times to get it, but you'll probably be
fine.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Massive income inequality hurts economic growth. Why? The rich don't spend
(much of) their money, they hoard it.

~~~
refurb
What do they do with it then? The only way they could hold money and it not
have a positive impact is if it's sitting in cash.

If they invest it or hell, even put it in a savings account, the money is
having a positive impact on the economy. If they buy a ridiculous $50M yacht?
That money flows to the company that built it.

~~~
onion2k
That's true, but it'd be true if all that money were divided between 1000
people's bank accounts or if 50 people bought $1m yachts too. And that way
there'd be more people enjoying the wealth rather than just one. Some people
think that's better.

------
jevgeni
Let me rephrase the title using absolute values:

"Richest 73 Million People Will Own More Than All The Rest by 2016"

~~~
djsumdog
That's less than the population of Germany having more wealth than the other 7
billion.

I've mentioned this before, but if you want to know why this is, read Debt:
the First 5000 Years.

It's life changing

~~~
jevgeni
Yeah. It's somewhere between France and Turkey.

But in my opinion the whole 99-vs-1 narrative is bonkers.

EDIT: Let me clarify to the downvoting PC frat boys: 99% vs 1% is a shit
metric that doesn't address the issue of inequality. The only thing it enables
is moronic populism.

Imagine if we take all the wealth of the 1% and distribute it uniformly among
the rest of the 99%. Do you really think this will lead to an equal
distribution of income?

------
hkmurakami
Well the richest 1% have definitely lost more than the rest (proportionally)
over the last 2 weeks as well...

------
monochromatic
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c&feature=youtu.be&t=53s)

Rising inequality on its own is not a problem.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
It is a problem if only because of the huge power differential it creates and
the segregation it leads to. It doesn't result in healthy societies.

~~~
sitkack
The inequality is also bad for the rich since they end up getting eaten.

~~~
vixen99
They'll be touched by your concern.

