
Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore, research reveals (2012) - simonebrunozzi
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens
======
xenadu02
Something is wrong and broken with "modern capitalism" if a mere 90,000 people
have more wealth than 90% of the planet. All the arguments about investment
and job creators falls flat; we have gobs and gobs of excess capital
desperately seeing some productive investment. Capitalists don't need any more
capital at the moment.

(Reminds me of the hedge fund carried interest exemption, which primarily
benefits less than 100 people in the USA, with the vast majority of the
benefit to the tune of > 1 billion dollars going to about ~5 people. So much
so that they spent millions lobbying Congress to stop any attempt at closing
the loophole and succeeded.)

I wish the old Soviet Union was still around. The communist revolution scare
put the fucking Fear of God into the capitalist class.

~~~
rebootthesystem
> Something is wrong and broken with "modern capitalism" if a mere 90,000
> people have more wealth than 90% of the planet.

Nothing is wrong or broken.

Have that other 90% start and run their own businesses or go to school and get
a degree in business that allows them to become a C level exec or invent a
product and launch a startup.

90% of the people on this planet don't do SHIT. Because doing shit is HARD.
Most are content working for someone who's willing to take risks, often with
consequences to their own personal lives.

And that's OK. There's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone can be an
entrepreneur or C level exec. Most people prefer simpler life.

For nearly a decade I lived across the street from a retired fireman. He put
twenty years or so on the job and retired with a very generous pension and
full benefits, for life. I watched as he amassed RV's, boats, jet ski's,
Harley's, cars, etc. Living the life, as they say.

At the same time, almost everyone on the same block got up at five or six in
the morning to go to work every day. Office workers, customer service folks, a
couple of engineers, a couple of doctors, I know them all. And, in my case,
well, it was 18 hours a day 7 days a week in the garage working on developing
a product. For two years the external view was that I didn't have a job or
didn't go to work, when, in reality, I was doing the equivalent of five jobs
and was working every waking hour.

So, a couple of years later the product launches and it does very well. Seven
figures per quarter very well. I decided it was time to replace our two cars,
which had nearly 200K miles and were in bad shape. When the two mid-range
(nothing fancy) cars appeared on my driveway the comments I got were, well,
incredible. "Wow! You must have won the lottery!". "Dude! Did you rob a
bank!". "You don't work, how did you buy these cars!". "Are you a drug
dealer?".

Nobody EVER made a comment about the fireman being set for life when he did
not contribute a dime to his pension plan that paid him six figures a year and
his gold-plated health plan. No, the entrepreneur was the "drug dealer" on the
block.

I created dozens of jobs through an incredible personal effort and sacrifice
and somehow didn't deserve what I had. I was compared to the 99% purely based
on my wealth.

Funny how everyone sees people who make money as undeserving purely based on
how much they make yet have no clue what it may have taken to get there and
can't be bothered to ask.

Please stop this nonsense of comparing the N percent to the M percent based on
how much money they make or have. If you are going to do that, include HOW
they got that money and, in particular, WHY the M percent couldn't be bothered
to even try to do better, educationally or in business.

Hint: You are not going to become wealthy working at McDonalds or, in general,
working as a employee at 99.99% of companies. The only corner case being
joining a startup that goes public and your stock options make you wealthy.
Like I said, corner case.

It's funny how people who often make the argument for this unfairness have
their brains short-circuited when you ask them if it was unfair for Steve Jobs
to become incredibly wealthy or, to use someone who's around today, Elon Musk.

~~~
JDiculous
You're trying to justify extreme inequality with an emotional moral argument
over hard work. The fallacies you're making are:

1\. Assuming wealth is earned (counter-example: inheritances, rent-seeking)

2\. Assuming wealth is compensation for contributing to society (counter-
example: rent-seeking)

Even if those two bullet points were true as you've assumed, I'd still argue
that capitalism in its current form of extreme wealth inequality is NOT
leading to a socially, economically, and technologically optimal society.

For one, poverty is a very real man-made problem. When all your energy is
dedicated solely to surviving and you live paycheck to paycheck, of course you
won't be able to do things like contemplate and pursue business opportunities
(and then people like you call them lazy).

.01% of the population having more wealth than the other 90% is akin to being
on an island of 100,000 people where 10 people own more land, bananas, etc.
than 90,000 people.

Even if these 10 people were all Einsteins and Elon Musks like you'd probably
claim, it's clear that this most likely isn't an optimum allocation of
resources. Land that could be put to better use for the community (eg.
farming, manufacturing) is hoarded for the pleasure of a few people. Resources
are allocated for the pleasure and whims of 10 people (eg. luxury goods).
Money sits vacant in bank accounts while business opportunities and
opportunities to otherwise help the community go unrealized. Capital and power
is so concentrated that it's effectively a monopoly, leading to a totally
lopsided system that places the interests of these 10 people above the other
99,990. Want to start a business requiring a large investment? Not happening
unless the "owners" approve, and probably not on favorable terms to you. You
start to see things like debt slavery being required simply to partake in
society (eg. education). The list goes on.

Also, you need to recognize that making a profit does not necessarily
correlate to contributing to society (eg. renting out land you own, jacking up
an HIV drug's price 5,000%, high-frequency trading, planned obsolescence), and
contributing to society does not necessarily correlate to making a profit (eg.
open source software, scientific research, taking care of a kid, teaching and
having an educated populace). I'm not saying we need to abolish capitalism.
Just that we need to recognize the imperfect nature of it, and seek to
alleviate those problems.

~~~
rebootthesystem
You can always find extreme cases to support any conclusion. There are bad
players at every level, rich and poor.

I do not appreciate victim mentality because i am the grandson of genocide
survivors who made it despite having not a dime to their name, no education,
no language and the most tragic experience one could possibly imagine. I have
zero sympathy for victim mentality.

That does not mean I am not sensitive to the plight of those trapped by
circumstances almost impossible to escape. We, as a society, must help them. I
do what I can as often as possible.

I see lots of people complaining about the poor while sipping their $5 latte
from Starbucks and typing their comments from a $2,000 Apple laptop. Very few
of them will stop drinking their lattes and buy a $400 computer so they can
donate money and time to help others. As they finish their latte they blame
the rich and capitalism for all of the worlds problems. A mirror is a powerful
device.

------
MrTonyD
Basic income doesn't solve this problem. I've worked with several executives
who get to decide how much they want to "appear" to make in the United States
-- all the rest is hidden offshore in stocks. The stocks they own have a very
low "face value" \-- since their value is set by transfers from other offshore
stocks set up in a maze through different countries (so the Panama revelations
won't catch them.) I have literally worked with executives hiding billions.
Basic income does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of opaque financial
instruments (derivatives, trusts, non-profits, and charities are also used to
make money disappear. But mazes of offshores seems to be preferred by the rich
people I have worked with - they are legal and well understood by all the big
accounting firms.)

It would be very easy to make holding such stock illegal. And, considering the
cost to our society and our world, any downsides would be outweighed by the
incredible gain.

~~~
jensen123
> It would be very easy to make holding such stock illegal.

Really? I think the USA already has many laws in place to make offshore tax
evasion harder. These laws also have the effect of making it very hard for
Americans to do (honest) financial stuff in other countries. For example, you
want to buy a second home in another country, and maybe open a bank account
there to take care of related bills? Or maybe you see some great investment
opportunities in another country and want to open a brokerage account there,
to buy some ordinary shares? Well, because of the laws already in place, many
foreign banks don't want to deal with you, because complying with these laws
is such a hassle. Well, I guess maybe it would be worthwhile for them if you
were a billionaire. Also, you might end up with a tax bill of more than 100%
of your gains back in the USA, if you're not careful.

~~~
codewaffle
It doesn't matter how hard you make tax evasion - if it's possible, then those
with resources to spare will be able to game it, and those without will
suffer.

------
jokoon
This will keep going as long as people agree that survival of the fittest is a
sound and fair argument to make the rules in society. Everyone is fending for
themselves, and less and less people consider it to be a fair deal to
contribute to society. So less join with it, and the one who do want to shield
themselves from it. The result is rent seeking and an epidemic of tax dodging.

That's how the social net is slowing being deconstructed. I actually have a
lot of sympathy for politicians who legitimately try to make people work
together (not necessarily taking sides here). Seen how politicians are being
systemically hated, I'm sure politics is actually a very tough job right now.

~~~
bdg
How are politicians "systemically" hated?

~~~
dcposch
Congress has a 11% approval rating. Nearly 90% of Americans agree that it's
performing inadequately

Given that all 535 members won an election to get there, that is pretty
surprising.

Widespread dislike of the entire political class is a new phenomenom in US
politics. It seems to be driven by:

* Unprecedented polarization

* Filter bubbles -- new media makes it easy to hear only news you already agree with.

* Gridlock and dysfunction

~~~
vinay427
> Given that all 535 members won an election to get there, that is pretty
> surprising.

I agree with your premise that politicians are generally disliked, but the
obvious explanation of this is that voters disapprove of many of the
representives they didn't vote for, especially those who belong to a different
party or no party.

------
ThomPete
This is one of those re-occurring strawmen that just won't die and it's
hurting the debate.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course wealth does not trickle down.
That's why it's defined as wealth. The real discussion to be had is the
difference between lazy wealth (ex. real estate) and active wealth (investing
in your own company)

The claim has never been that people like the Koch brothers somehow spend
their wealth to the benefit of people "below" them and since it's their wealth
then of course it's not trickling down.

The claim is that a lot of the wealth that is created from the millions of
businesses which then result in jobs, a couple here, a couple there benefits
people.

It's obvious that if you think about the ultra wealthy then the trickle down
effect is minimal there is a limit to how many Bentleys you can own.

But if you take the large majority of small businesses and entrepreneurs who
create a little but in quantity then wealth does trickle down. Working wealth
that is.

~~~
pmoriarty
Do most people work for large, medium, or small businesses?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they work mostly for large businesses.
If so, then "job creation" effect of small businesses is not that great.

~~~
ThomPete
The job creation effect isn't the argument here.

The argument is wether wealth is better while active rather than passive
capital. People with great wealth don't spend proportionally as much as people
with less wealth.

I.e. it's true that the wealth of the 1% doesn't trickle down but the 99% does
because it's active and thats what makes the economy go around (economic
activity, spending money)

But if you want to discuss that then:

"...American Business is Overwhelmingly Small Business. In 2012, according to
U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 5.73 million employer firms in the U.S.
Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those
businesses, and businesses with less than 20 workers made up 89.6 percent..."

~~~
pmoriarty
That just shows that almost all businesses in America are small businesses. It
says nothing about whether most employees in the US are employees of large or
small businesses.

~~~
ThomPete
Because that's not important to this discussion.

The point is that lots of small businesses are much better "consumers" because
the they have much more needs than if you only had a few big companies.

The number of employees aren't important, the number of companies are.

The wealth which the trickle down economy critics talk about is not the wealth
that is meant when talking about trickle down effects by most people.

The wealth that is meant is the wealth of the many small companies rather than
the few wealthy who have most of their wealth in ex. real-estate.

The wealth of the few ultra rich isn't trickling down, but the wealth of the
many small companies are because it's creating other jobs in other companies.

In other words.

If we live in a world were only 1000 people had any wealth their ability to
stimulate the economy from their own needs aren't enough compared to their
wealth.

But if we lived in a world where 100000000 are sharing the wealth then that
alone creates much more economic activity.

------
sambe
There doesn't seem to much in the article to suggest it doesn't trickle down,
so the headline is rather sensationalist. They are saying that lots of it goes
off-shore, but unspent wealth will not "trickle down" anyway (granted, there
is perhaps more incentive to spend if the alternative is getting taxed, but
the extent is unclear). These people are likely still spending quite a
substantial amount back into the economy (and tax, although obviously nowhere
near what they "should" be).

I do think there is general agreement that trickle down is not as effective as
"advertised" but that doesn't mean zero effect.

It's also worth noting that the headline figures are total amount saved
offshore across all countries, not the tax on that amount (or its returns) for
a given country and its alternative internal tax structures.

~~~
Nutmog
Agreed. If they ever spend it, it'll trickle down. If they don't spend it,
it'll be increasing the value of all the dollars that everybody else has -
they've basically lending money to the rest of the world until such time as
they decide to spend what they have, then it'll cause some inflation and the
poor people will effectively be paying back that loan.

If they never spend it, then everyone else wins. Setting fire to money or
burying it in a hole is like donating it to everyone else who also has money.

I don't understand what the problem is with a small number of people having a
lot of money. What harm are they doing? Or is it simply plain old-fashioned
jealousy?

~~~
vinay427
> Or is it simply plain old-fashioned jealousy?

Please don't make the mistake of thinking this is jealousy. There are plenty
of wealthy Americans who generally oppose the wealth inequality we have today,
and I can't imagine they are jealous of themselves for believing that. I think
that if one is empathetic to those who grow up in different environments
(whether it be of a different race, religion, or income bracket) then the
realization is that they should have equal opportunities to succeed. That, in
my opinion, doesn't seem very likely if so much money remains at the hands of
those in the top wealth echelons.

Could the nation succeed by putting business interests first? Perhaps, but at
what cost to the vast majority of its people? To some, that cost is not
acceptable.

------
wj
If I was incredibly wealthy I would attempt to have a not insignificant
portion if it offshore as a hedge against my local or national government
instituting an out-sized tax on wealth or nationalizing my business.

------
dplgk
Rich people do not need money. Give them more, they will invest it or hoard
it. Give poor people money, they will spend it right away. Which helps an
economy more?

~~~
alanwatts
The answer to this logical question is obvious. Unfortunately this is a debate
that is dominated by emotions and not logic due to 100+ years of propaganda,
brainwashing, M.A.D. scare tactics, and the fallacy of Malthusian-Darwinian
ideology

------
SixSigma
They are breaking the social contract to operate. We give them limited
liability, they give us the finger.

------
facepalm
Is offshore money a good investment? Sounds to me it would just be sitting
there passively, by the uncle scrooge mentality it would therefore be a gift
to society. Money is an obligation of society to return something to the
individual who owns it. If that obligation is never claimed, great...

------
SCAQTony
The poor are really pro at spending money. Then can turn trickle down into
firehose-up and given the chance.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
This is an important difference between the rich and the poor. The poor
actually spend their money.

~~~
Aeolos
Which means that BI would stimulate the economy in a way that trickle-down
economics cannot.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You understand that "stimulate" in the Keynesian context means "cause
inflation and lower real wages", right?

Why would this be a good thing in an economy at full employment?

~~~
Aeolos
> Why would this be a good thing in an economy at full employment?

This is a strawman argument. Apart from (arguably) Switzerland, what other
economy is at full employment?

> You understand that "stimulate" in the Keynesian context means "cause
> inflation and lower real wages", right?

1\. Real wages have been decreasing year-over-year since the '50s. BI would
not change that.

2\. This is the least of the worries for the 19.9 million Americans who live
in abject poverty, and the many more who have to choose between paying rent,
food or transportation (=cannot even afford to find a liveable job.)

~~~
yummyfajitas
The US is at 5.5% unemployment, the UK at 5.4%, Germany at 4.8%. This is the
ballpark of the natural rate of unemployment.

Do you really believe there is a significant pool of workers who are unwilling
to work currently, but might work if we inflated away the value of their
sticky nominal wages (thereby fooling them into thinking they weren't taking a
pay cut)? Where are they?

(1) is just not true. Real comp (which is actually what I should have said,
since comp is what determines buyer and seller willingness to trade) has done
nothing but increase.
[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/COMPRNFB)

If BI did not change this then it would not be stimulus. So which is it?

~~~
CuriouslyC
Just to be fair, you should include labor force participation when quoting
those low unemployment numbers. If you include people who gave up looking for
a job after the meltdown we're closer to 9% unemployment.

~~~
vkou
Don't forget to add underemployment to the list - people who have jobs, but
not enough working hours to survive.

In the US, at least, an incredibly common opinion is that those people are
scum, and deserve nothing. It's very strange to hear you call it the 'natural
rate of unemployment.' The human impact poverty has on the unemployed is
devastating. (Yes, there is also the working poor.)

~~~
yummyfajitas
_It 's very strange to hear you call it..._

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

 _In the US, at least, an incredibly common opinion is that those people are
scum_

I've literally never heard this opinion expressed.

Certainly one can criticize the people you describe - they could work, but due
to their pride or whatever, they refuse jobs because the nominal wage is too
low. They refuse to solve their own problems so we need stimulus to trick them
into doing so.

But this is a fairly uncommon position - most people have no understanding of
sticky wages and don't understand that stimulus is about lowering real wages,
or that people could find a job if they lowered their nominal wage demands.

~~~
vkou
> I've literally never heard this opinion expressed.

Pretty much everyone who thinks that the unemployed don't deserve state
entitlements (Typically, because of the poverty of their character).

Nominal wage demands are held up at the bottom end by people needing to make a
living wage. Yes, a skilled computer programmer asking for $7/hour could
easily find work at the height of the dot-com bust - however, they'd still
depend on handouts, be it from the state, or their relatives for survival.

And when we move down the wage track, things don't get any better. How would
people already receiving close to minimal wage attain employability by
lowering their wage demands?

This also only solve a problem for the individual, rather then society as a
whole - it largely shifts unemployment around, and pulls everyone's standard
of living down.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Pretty much everyone who thinks that the unemployed don 't deserve state
entitlements (Typically, because of the poverty of their character)._

That's a completely different claim. It's also a claim you agreed with - you
just acknowledged a few sentences down that many unemployed people could work
if they chose to. Does this mean you also believe such people are "scum"?

 _Nominal wage demands are held up at the bottom end by people needing to make
a living wage. Yes, a skilled computer programmer asking for $7 /hour could
easily find work at the height of the dot-com bust - however, they'd still
depend on handouts, be it from the state, or their relatives for survival._

Where I am right now many computer programmers survive easily on $7/hour. It's
considered a good wage except in tech hubs (Bangalore, Pune, Gurgaon). If your
theory were right I should be surrounded by about a billion corpses.

But lets assume that one can't survive on $7. Suppose we adopted stimulus and
inflation caused $10 post-stimulus to buy the same goods and services as $7
pre-stimulus. Isn't the person who suddenly became willing to work due to this
trickery still failing to survive?

 _How would people already receiving close to minimal wage attain
employability by lowering their wage demands?_

You are correct that minimum wage can cause unemployment, particularly during
recessions.

------
narrator
And then it floods back in in places like the Vancouver real estate market.

------
xixi77
The article has nothing to do with trickle down or taxes: it just underscores
that many people are not too excited about keeping their property in places
where rule of law is rather peculiar. E.g. if you look at the title graphic,
2nd largest capital flight figure is for Russia -- I highly doubt its 13%
(iirc) flat income tax is to blame for that.

------
dingdingdang
Great article - "...new study suggests a staggering $21tn in assets has been
lost to global tax havens. If taxed, that could have been enough to put parts
of Africa back on its feet – and even solve the euro crisis"

------
bakhy
some time ago, the definition of "trickle down" on wikipedia used to contain,
in the first sentence, the statement that the goal is to achieve wealth
distribution. the contradiction was too glaring, i presume ;) because, if so,
then why not just give the money to the people? their spending will then
inevitably reward and enrich those market actors that deserve it, leading to a
much healthier market then one created by governments transferring money to
arbitrary, politically connected capitalists.

ceterum censeo, basic income is the future!

------
ajuc
Offshore is down. What were you expecting?

~~~
alexc05
Isn't that clever?

Of course it is. Land is above "sea level" and all that.

(Except when it's not, but in the whole macro sense land must be above sea
level)

------
SixSigma
Capital goes to where to where it will do the most work.

~~~
dredmorbius
Counterhypothesis: capital goes to where it will extract the most wealth,
without necessarily producing greater societal value. Often the inverse.

------
dredmorbius
NB: This is a 2012 article.

~~~
swehner
Dated Saturday, July 21, 2012

------
eveningcoffee
Well, this is what you believe it does, but is it proven or at least fairly
convincingly demonstrated by at least some model or more thoughtful
argumentation?

I have not researched this topic or given any longer thought about this, so at
this point I am honestly curious.

For example how would the market react to this? Mostly what would happen with
prices of essential goods and housing?

More importantly, how would people react sexually? Would they start having
more babies just because they now can? What group of people would pick up this
behaviour?

For example in my opinion most of the possible wealth accumulation in the
third world countries is destroyed by very high population growth (in most
countries above 4 times in 50 last years; fortunately this decreasing in many
places).

Is this mostly a solved problem for developed world?

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11465477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11465477)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
eveningcoffee
Thanks! I did not expect it to explode like this.

------
known
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)
FTW

~~~
mgo
You should research all tenets of basic income including the economic side of
it by getting the opinion of actual economists on it before you make your
decision. If you're not properly considering an idea then that leaves room for
personal biases.

Government doesn't know how to run anything well, because the tenets of
capitalism don't apply to government. The best managers of business are in the
private sector where the real money is and where they have the most control.

The director of the FBI for example has a salary that tops out at about $200K
plus benefits. No business manager who is truly great would want that job, so
they don't. They incestuously promote from within most of the time and don't
seek outsiders to fill top jobs. So nobody treats any government service as a
business, and they get complacent and lose sight of the real goals, plus they
don't tend to be able to budget. When was the last time you heard of a
government department tightening it's belt on it's own? Private sector
companies do it often to stay efficient.

Proper decision making starts with admitting that you can't possible know
every angle to a particular issue. You can't be a great economist, a great
businessman and a great government worker all-in-one. This is why business
people surround themselves with people who DO know what they're doing (such as
accountants, lawyers, engineers, marketers, etc).

How many hours have you spent researching basic income? Because extremely
back-of-the-napkin math would tell you that a basic income of $20,000 is
greater than the entire current government budget. Supporting a concept that
would instantly consume over 100% of the current government budget is absolute
madness.

Taxing rich people won't pay for this, even if you tax them at 90%. You have
to squeeze the middle class and the lower class as well. Literally every level
of the population suffers because working is no longer incentivised.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
>Government doesn't know how to run anything well, because the tenets of
capitalism don't apply to government.

Who built the freeway system, ran the Manhattan project, created CERN, put
people on the moon, and sponsored the research that led to computing and the
Internet?

>The best managers of business are in the private sector where the real money
is and where they have the most control.

Given the number of incredibly destructive, if not downright stupid, CEOs in
recent corporate history, that's simply not a reality-based argument.

>Literally every level of the population suffers because working is no longer
incentivised.

Literally every level of the population is already suffering for much the same
reason. Current forms of capitalism _penalise long-term strategic investment_
in favour of asset sweating and smash-and-grab corporate raiding that provide
short-term quick-fix profits but destroy long term growth potential.

Wall St will _always_ prefer a quick buck now to a million dollar payout fifty
years from now - and that's not a smart way to run a planetary economic
strategy.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" Who built the freeway system, ran the Manhattan project, created CERN, put
people on the moon, and sponsored the research that led to computing and the
Internet?"_

There's also all of the taxpayer-funded and govt-run basic medical research
that the pharmaceutical and medical industries get a free ride on.

------
andriesm
Whatever happened to the principle that whoever makes the through legal trade
gets to own it?

Why does the US have such gigantic monetary needs?

How on earth does the US get into 18 trillion of debt?

Where's all thr fruits of that money????

Surely the solution is not for the government to keep being given more of the
people's money?!!

Government is a bottomless pit waste of money with very weak oversight - the
more money you give the government - the more it wastes.

If people paid for the things they need directly, rather than have the
cost/administration overhead of government, society as a whole would be
richer.

Corporations don't use very many government services - so why should they be
heavily taxed?

The more ridiculous the taxes in the US become, the more businesses will
simply incorporate overseas.

The US taxes need to become radically lower and radically simpler - then the
US stands a chance to actually collect taxes.

See Ireland 12.5 corporate tax rate.

------
elcapitan
With all the attacks from the left against allegedly "privileged" people, I
can actually well understand why those people want to secure their property by
moving it out of reach. The fun thing about this new outrage (the "Panama
Papers") is that it will probably spawn more of that, in order to protect
against the populist new regulations and taxations that will inevitably
follow.

The only thing I find regrettable is that it is not available for average
incomes - I would love to have something like that. In case some massive
redistribution schemes appear along the horizon, maybe a new industry around
that will evolve.

------
rebootthesystem
Hey, folks, go start a business before voicing opinion about these matters.
It's just amazing how there's this recurring theme on HN of folks without a
clue about business thinking they actually know something.

Better yet, this is HN. Go formulate a startup and apply to YC, let's see how
far you get and what you learn about what it takes to provide excellent
innovative products that people want to buy. You'll also learn the gut-
wrenching realities of being an entrepreneur.

And then, a few years later, you'll find yourself having a surreal
conversation with some know-it-all who never risked anything, never tried to
innovate, never tried to launch or run a business, who is absolutely certain
you are a greedy pig, your company is evil and the customer service person
should be just as wealthy as you are.

You don't understand just how dumb some of these comments sound from the
vantage point of someone who achieved success through continued struggle and
effort spanning years and at great personal and financial cost.

There's nothing wrong with Capitalism. What's wrong is the victim culture we
seem to be developing --which leads exactly nowhere at both a personal and
national level.

I say this in the nicest possible way. Get a clue. Please.

~~~
solidangle
Apparently complaining about living in poverty is victim culture. Apparently
complaining about working two full-time minimum wage jobs while barely being
able to pay the bills is victim culture. Apparently complaining about not
being able to afford a quality education for your children (so that they do
not have to live in the same poverty) is victim culture. Apparently
complaining about not being able to afford healthcare is victim culture.

Sure, people doing startups or creating other businesses work hard, but that
shouldn't be the norm. Working 40 hours a week as an employee should be
enough. And by the way we're not even complaining about the people creating
businesses, we're complaining about the people who inherit their wealth, get
everything handed on a silver platter, and who still aren't grateful and don't
want to pay their employees more than minimum wage. We shouldn't accept that
kind of wealth in our society when there are people living in (extreme)
poverty.

~~~
rebootthesystem
How dare you?

My grandparents arrived at these shores without a dime to their names, without
command of the language, from a GENOCIDE where they endured the trauma of
having seen members of their families raped and murdered. They woked their
asses off and made it. And they instilled that culture on their children and
grand children.

So, yes, fucking stop thinking like a victim. It's insulting.

Yes's there are those who absolutely need help. Stop complaining and go help
them. Don't blame others.

~~~
davesque
Solidangle probably didn't know anything about your personal background. So
you have no right to accuse him of being insensitive. Also, it's good that you
were able to turn a bad situation into something good. However, the mere fact
that you, individually, managed to succeed doesn't mean there's not a problem
that's worth talking about. Your personal story is relevant, but anecdotal.

