World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this year

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by coliveira on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @01:36PM (#16016838)

People who do not contribute to society are what we call parasites. Just because your father or grand-grand-father did something useful to the world doesn't justify that you have to live like a king. Modern society destroyed the old feudal order exactly to avoid this kind of social injustice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by aalleavitch on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @01:45PM (#16016898)

You don't even need to get all this righteous anger involved; the rich benefit more from the stable functioning of society than the poor precisely because they are rich. If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt. It's not only reasonable to expect them to invest more proportionally in the continued functioning of society: it's in their best interest if they're smart enough to look past their balance sheet at the end of the year.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by cornholio on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:13PM (#16017118)

That's a clearly defective model from a game theoretical point of view. A certain rich person can do very little to preserve the stability of the society, so their actions would be concentrated on things that give them direct benefits, that may or may not help society. It's essentially an externality problem, everybody is marginally hurt by say pollution, but some have local gains that far outweigh the costs, motivating them to pollute, bribe politicians and regulators, skirt taxes and so on, leaving other rich or poor people to support the welfare of the society. When the scales tip in favor of the freeriders, you have a failed state that no rich profiteer could have prevented, working individually.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by aalleavitch on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:24PM (#16017206)

Working individually, yes. But realistically this is more of an iterative prisoner's dilemma than a straight prisoner's dilemma. If the rich don't hold up their part of the social contract, the poor tend to eat them (eventually). So the rich are only incentivized to screw the system if they can get away with it. The problems start happening when we let them get away with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by justicezyx on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:01PM (#16017024)

> If the structures that support that wealth were to collapse they'd have a lot more to lose than the guy drowning in debt.

If history says anything, it's that humans only see this when the structure collapse, not when it's still working.

And to be harsh and potentially thought as rude: all you have been saying is a dream, a dream of impractical theorist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by cmurf on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:52PM (#16017504)

Who says they're smart enough? There's a very long history of aristocracies perfectly content to exploit the lower classes, and then got all shocked when the peons wanted the wealthy executed - assuming of course the aristocrats hadn't first riled up the ignorant masses with some reason to start a war.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by dclowd9901 on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:02PM (#16017034)

They only invest in those things that prop them up. Like donating to police or lawmakers, or the very poor with next to nothing to lose (and thus the most dangerous).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by notyourwork on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @01:46PM (#16016900)

I completely agree that the richest should contribute to society, especially as someone in the middle class. However, let's pretend I was born into the wealthiest class. If I inherit a business, that business provides jobs (ie. wages) for people, and is a functioning part of the economic system. Does that mean I am not contributing?

Regardless of how rich I am, I still need to eat and live and put clothes on my back. Are these not contributions?

Or are you suggesting that the wealthiest are parasites simply because they should contribute more to society than someone less financially well off?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by MisterBastahrd on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @03:27PM (#16017753)

No, you aren't really contributing. That business existed without your ownership stake. You inherited it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by justicezyx on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:03PM (#16017043)

It's not just contribution, it's about the ratio of what you take and what you contribute.

Ideally, one should contribute as much as she/he takes. Of course, that's impossible and impractical.

I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly.

That's the problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by oreo81 on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:16PM (#16017150)

I see it as the exact opposite.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by justicezyx on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @04:10PM (#16018069)

> I'd say the higher in the social rank, they ratio of contribution to taking drops exponentially, not linearly.

You mean the richer people are, the ratio of their contribution to taking grows? That does not seem possible, because that will not make the person rich in the first place.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by oreo81 on Thursday December 28, 2017 @10:59AM (#16022726)

They're rich in the first place because they've contributed more to society than other people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by justicezyx on Thursday December 28, 2017 @07:18PM (#16026378)

Sure, I have no doubt that they contribute more than others.

But the problem is the ratio of their taking far outpace the contribution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by oreo81 on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @11:40AM (#16053005)

That's your opinion, what makes you the judge of other peoples social contributions?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by QAPereo on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @01:53PM (#16016964)

If you offshore your profits and workers, avoid taxes, and the usual bag of tricks?

Yes, parasite, and what happens to parasites which are too successful?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by notyourwork on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:04PM (#16017049)

Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though. So in a global economy I'm not sure your argument is technically justified and simply the righteous argument most people would accept as true.

If my US company shifts labor to India, do we assume it is bad simply because the US doesn't receive those wages to stimulate the US economy? Does this benefit India though?

I think your argument depends on perspective, from US point of view this situation is bad, from India's it isn't bad. From the wealthy person's doing this, it simply benefits him/her.

I don't know how to solve this and completely agree with the argument but it is technically flawed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by QAPereo on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:09PM (#16017087)

Avoiding taxes isn't illegal though.

No one said that it was, and it isn’t illegal to be a parasite. As to the rest, life is a competition.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:14PM (#16017132)

> why should an extremely wealthy person have to contribute to society?

If influence, specifically political influence, and wealth could be perfectly decoupled, no reason. That nexus, however, means an oligarchical class of rich idiots have the capability to project their stupidity onto national policy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by ouid on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @03:25PM (#16017738)

Even if they aren't projecting their stupidity, they're certainly projecting their interests. There's nothing preventing their interests from being at odds with society's interests.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by malandrew on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @03:23PM (#16017722)

Poor idiots collectively have the capability to project their stupidity onto national policy as well. Maybe we should reduce the size and scope of national policy to minimize the impact of idiots, rich or poor.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by aalleavitch on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @01:31PM (#16016796)

Why should anyone have to contribute to society? Because they benefit from it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by notyourwork on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @01:47PM (#16016921)

That's a good point - the wealthiest are wealthy because they rely on the economy to continue functioning.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by collyw on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @03:28PM (#16017759)

When you earn trillions in isn't through the sweat off your own back. Its other people earning it for you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by mbrameld on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @05:48PM (#16018742)

If a wealthy person earns their wealth, then they have benefitted from their contribution to society. If they are allowed to lock that wealth up multigenerationally, then they are incentivized to change the system to make it harder for others to do what they themselves have done, to the benefit of others who have also already taken advantage.

Society as a whole benefits much more when each generation has to earn the bulk of their wealth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:World's richest 500 see their wealth increase by $1T this... by wvenable on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @05:56PM (#16018801)

At minimum, a wealthy person should at least buy stuff -- that would actually be a contribution to society. But the super-wealthy have more money than they can possibly spend!

[ Parent | on HN ]