TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Wealth isn’t created at the top, it is merely devoured there

224 点作者 Futurebot大约 8 年前

19 条评论

Animats大约 8 年前
Corporate dividends are taxed, while interest paid is not. This encourages debt financing. It&#x27;s a subsidy program for lenders. It fuels leveraged buyouts; &quot;private equity&quot; usually means converting equity to debt. It also fuels stock buybacks as opposed to dividends. This causes a huge distortion in business financing, and it accrues to the benefit of banks. It would be straightforward to fix this as part of tax reform, but the banks would scream. We&#x27;re not going to fix this in the US until we have a Goldman Sachs free administration.<p>The other big subsidy program for lenders is borrowing money from the Fed at low rates which can then be lent at much higher commercial rates. That&#x27;s the welfare state for banks.<p>It doesn&#x27;t have to be that way. Japan and China inject money into the economy by building, and sometimes overbuilding, publicly funded infrastructure. The banking system plays a lesser role in economic stimulation. This has its advantages; usually the infrastructure is good for something.
评论 #14129119 未加载
评论 #14127893 未加载
评论 #14128208 未加载
评论 #14128237 未加载
danblick大约 8 年前
Lately I&#x27;ve been thinking about how funny it is that we make heroes out of the heads of tech companies.<p>Especially in technology, does anyone really believe that if these particular individuals hadn&#x27;t contributed their talents, the world would have turned out much different?<p>Would there be no operating systems without Gates? No social networks without Zuckerberg? No search engines without Page? No e-commerce without Bezos? (Granted, Bezos is pretty exceptional.)<p>Why should particular individuals capture such massive rewards when their success had more to do with circumstance than anything else?<p>(There&#x27;s a connection here to the &quot;great man theory&quot; of history and its critiques.)
评论 #14128028 未加载
评论 #14127853 未加载
评论 #14128240 未加载
评论 #14128140 未加载
评论 #14127978 未加载
评论 #14128191 未加载
评论 #14127752 未加载
评论 #14135952 未加载
评论 #14128012 未加载
评论 #14127996 未加载
评论 #14128154 未加载
评论 #14130710 未加载
lordnacho大约 8 年前
One of the comments has an interesting remark:<p>&quot;We’re invited to believe that a CEO can somehow ‘earn’ £10m per year, whereas a teacher ‘earns’ £25k per year. That’s only possible if you divorce the word ‘earn’ from any of its actual meaning. No one can actually work enough hours, or create enough value, to equate to £10m.&quot;<p>I think this is the essence of the recent debate about inequality. I think most people would not have a problem with those who are genuinely producing more getting more as well. Think back to school, did you ever complain about your grades if you knew some other kid had worked harder? Me neither. Of course there were times when it seemed arbitrary as well, seemingly having no relevance to quality.<p>It&#x27;s a big problem creating a notion of fairness when you move on from school, where everyone is the same age, in the same class, doing the same homework. To create software, for instance, what do you typically find? There&#x27;s people of various ages, some managing, some selling, some writing code, some doing testing. You need all of them to get the job done, and the job has some sort of value, however vaguely defined, that is greater than the sum of its parts. Nobody on the team could do all of the team&#x27;s work as effectively as the team.<p>So then we have the problem of attribution. There&#x27;s no real way to say what fraction of the value someone created. The only thing we really have is negotiating positions. If you&#x27;re able to say &quot;Give me half or I&#x27;m taking my ball&quot; convincingly, your teammates will give you half. They&#x27;ll be thinking about a few things mainly: whether you&#x27;ll really leave if turned down, whether they think they can replace you, and what deal they can put forth to other potential teams if you turn out to be irreplaceable.<p>This will have some interesting effects. If you&#x27;re already making a lot, you&#x27;ll probably need a lot to want to participate. You have more savings in order to hold out for a better offer. CEO guy &quot;genuinely&quot; needs more pay because why wouldn&#x27;t he just retire now? Janitor guy will take any offer, because he needs to be running to stand still. Actually a lot of people will be in that position, even though their labour is generally seen as useful, like teachers.<p>Which is all just a long way of saying that the negotiating process does not in itself take merit as an input.
评论 #14128193 未加载
评论 #14127915 未加载
评论 #14127994 未加载
评论 #14129534 未加载
评论 #14129561 未加载
评论 #14128152 未加载
vanderZwan大约 8 年前
Another way to think about it is to see all these platforms as markets.<p>Facebook is a people market. Spotify is a music market. Airbnb a hotel market. Uber a taxi market Amazon and eBay... Well, literally markets, right? And so on.<p>Markets obviously <i>do</i> create wealth, as a lubricant for trade. It&#x27;s a meta-level of the economy, just like money is a meta-good that makes bartering actual goods and services more efficient.<p>So saying that&#x27;s it&#x27;s all &quot;rentier&quot; without creating any wealth might be selling them short a bit.<p>Where I&#x27;m troubled is that they&#x27;re not <i>free</i> markets, in any sense of the word. They are privately owned, and the owners try to control their markets for the sake of their own profit. That&#x27;s where things get problematic, I&#x27;d say, especially when there is a monopoly.
评论 #14128195 未加载
Melchizedek大约 8 年前
Nor is it created at the bottom, where it is spent or destroyed. It is created in the middle, by the middle class.<p>The middle class is the class that feeds the unproductive classes at both the top and the bottom. And the unproductive have formed a political alliance where the bottom votes for the top in exchange for handouts, all paid for by the middle.
评论 #14127591 未加载
评论 #14127565 未加载
jostmey大约 8 年前
I think it sad that there is only one word for wealth. It does not distinguish how a person attained that wealth. Was it inherited? Was the wealth created? Or was it taken at the expense of others? How society treats and taxes the wealthy should depend on how the wealth is attained.
评论 #14127548 未加载
评论 #14127665 未加载
评论 #14127490 未加载
评论 #14127526 未加载
评论 #14127977 未加载
评论 #14127445 未加载
评论 #14127741 未加载
belovedeagle大约 8 年前
&gt; Every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll.<p>This is bullshit, but it&#x27;s very pernicious bullshit because while it only takes one person to pull this out of their ass, no one person can refute it. No one person can articulate where all the stuff in an iPhone came from; abstraction is one of the true marvels of technology today
评论 #14127642 未加载
评论 #14127604 未加载
Houshalter大约 8 年前
I&#x27;m generally libertarian leaning and expected to completely disagree with this. But he&#x27;s got a point. Does anyone here really believe Facebook deserves to be a multi-billion dollar company? All of their success comes from the luck of being first (ish) and establishing a monopoly because of network effects. Someone might make a vastly better social network. But are you going to use that, or the one your friends and family use?
评论 #14127628 未加载
评论 #14127666 未加载
mnm1大约 8 年前
&quot;But such a revolution will require a wholly different narrative about the origins of our wealth. It will require ditching the old-fashioned faith in “solidarity” with a miserable underclass that deserves to be borne aloft on the market-level salaried shoulders of society’s strongest.&quot;<p>This has never happened in the past, but similar things have happened, always driven by violence. Can this happen without violence, I wonder?
评论 #14127593 未加载
评论 #14127590 未加载
dahart大约 8 年前
&gt; but across the spectrum virtually all agree that wealth is created primarily at the top.<p>Good lord, is this really true? I don&#x27;t know about you people, but the basic pre-reqs for my undergrad had a single overview economics class where we covered among many other things the definitions of capitalism and profit and the idea that profit equals the difference between the sale price of a commodity and the cost of goods &amp; labor used to produce it -- literally the definition of profit disagrees with the idea that wealth is created at the top, whatever that is even supposed to mean.<p>&gt; When you think about it, it’s insane. We are forking over billions in taxes to help our brightest minds on and up the corporate ladder so they can learn how to score ever more outrageous handouts.<p>There&#x27;s a lot about the world that gets completely insane if you think too much about it. Cars are insane. Jobs are insane. Politics and money are insane.<p>We have to have better options for smart people than highly compensated and interesting work at Facebook and Google. How do we create better options? I don&#x27;t think pointing it out will cause better options to materialize.<p>&gt; Yet it doesn’t have to be this way. Tollgates can be torn down, financial products can be banned, tax havens dismantled, lobbies tamed, and patents rejected. Higher taxes on the ultra-rich can make rentierism less attractive, precisely because society’s biggest freeloaders are at the very top of the pyramid. And we can more fairly distribute our earnings on land, oil, and innovation through a system of, say, employee shares, or a universal basic income.<p>&gt; But such a revolution will require a wholly different narrative about the origins of our wealth. It will require ditching the old-fashioned faith in “solidarity” with a miserable underclass that deserves to be borne aloft on the market-level salaried shoulders of society’s strongest. All we need to do is to give real hard-working people what they deserve.<p>OH! That&#x27;s all we need to do, eh? It&#x27;s so easy! :)<p>It&#x27;s not the first time this has been suggested. There are even names for this. And it sounds great. But the forces keeping our system the way it is are stronger than this. The narratives we need about the origins of wealth already exist, and they&#x27;re not strong enough to turn the tide. I don&#x27;t know what is strong enough to turn the tide.
anon_500大约 8 年前
This article seems like a classic case of theoretical discussion with little to no practical significance.<p>&quot;In reality, it is precisely the other way around. In reality, it is the waste collectors, the nurses, and the cleaners whose shoulders are supporting the apex of the pyramid. They are the true mechanism of social solidarity.&quot;<p>Jobs such as waste collection will be completely automated away in the next decade. I suppose machines then will be the true mechanism of &quot;social solidarity&quot;?<p>&quot;But there is also a second way to make money. That’s the rentier way: by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others’ expense, using his power to claim economic benefit.&quot;<p>It seems like the author believes that any gain to one group can only happen at the expense of another. Yet we know this to be false - the pie can and does get bigger.<p>&quot;revealed that much of the financial sector has become downright parasitic. How instead of creating wealth, they gobble it up whole.&quot;<p>Agree, but curious to understand which industry the author doesn&#x27;t define as parasitic? All companies want to expand and grow relentlessly, that&#x27;s just the nature of capitalism. Cable&#x2F;Telecom? Oil and gas? High Tech? All of them have become &quot;parasitic&quot; if that&#x27;s how the author wants to define it.<p>&quot;Higher taxes on the ultra-rich can make rentierism less attractive, precisely because society’s biggest freeloaders are at the very top of the pyramid. And we can more fairly distribute our earnings on land, oil, and innovation through a system of, say, employee shares, or a universal basic income.&quot;<p>Wrong. Higher taxes, though welcome, will not be the solution. Nor will universal basic income. How does one not understand that with the rise of automation, the rich are about to get so much richer, no matter how much you plan on taxing them. And basic income, though beneficial, won&#x27;t fix class inequality either, in fact it might just exacerbate it.<p>Let&#x27;s talk about something the author fails to even mention: Education. Class inequality is fixed by education equality. Period. End of story. The rich in the USA have access to far better education, and THAT is the true source of the rising inequality.
Jabanga大约 8 年前
The shocking level of economic ignorance of the author shows how utterly irresponsible and demagogic the Guardian is. This is rank sensationalism at the expense of public&#x27;s correct perception of the world.<p>To call earning passive income on assets one owns &quot;rentier&quot; earning of income is to show unquestioned acceptance of socialist assumptions about the right to property, to ignore the value the person&#x27;s assets contribute, and to totally neglect the role that delayed consumption (aka saving) and investment analysis, both components of investing and acquiring assets, have in wealth generation.<p>This is the quack economics the article is promoting:<p>&gt;To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our “human capital” in economic terms) to create something new, whether that’s a takeout app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth.<p>&gt;But there is also a second way to make money. That’s the rentier way: by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others’ expense, using his power to claim economic benefit.
dade_大约 8 年前
I think this situation perfectly describes the problem: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;business.financialpost.com&#x2F;executive&#x2F;cogeco-inc-ceo-louis-audet-says-family-ownership-is-good-for-businesses-and-canada" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;business.financialpost.com&#x2F;executive&#x2F;cogeco-inc-ceo-l...</a><p>&quot;Family ownership&quot; and transferring wealth to heirs tax free.
macawfish大约 8 年前
wealth is create by workers, derived from the sun, love, care and the ecosystem!
agumonkey大约 8 年前
I think energy flows where there&#x27;s energy, so money makers will keep being money makers and thus &quot;wealth&quot; will loop (devoured).
Booktrope大约 8 年前
Nothing like a little oversimplified, half baked Marxism, when you want a one-idea panacea for society&#x27;s problems. Ugh!
评论 #14127852 未加载
评论 #14132060 未加载
评论 #14127843 未加载
mankash666大约 8 年前
Hilarious!!! To learn more about how socialism is perfect, please buy Rutger B.. (the author) book off Amazon, a &quot;rentier&quot; by the author&#x27;s own admission. And like good mind washed sheep, buy the book in huge droves to propel the author into &quot;rentier-ship&quot; accelerating a vicious cycle of the author curbing out books demonizing the very thing the he relies on to mind wash you into rentier slavery and socialism.
评论 #14130294 未加载
ktRolster大约 8 年前
The first sentence of that article is a little overwrought.
peculiarbird大约 8 年前
Anyone else tired of seeing this communist bullshit? Starting to get worried at the frequency these types of articles keep popping up here.