Hacker News Reader

Comment by guelo | Hacker News Reader

What's interesting about this election is that so much of the anger, especially from lower class whites, is being channeled into the Republican party. It's not a cry for wealth distribution, it's a cry against immigrants supposedly taking our jobs. And that's a big failing by the Democrats to tap into that anger.

But I think this is going to be typical of elections going forward, red hot anger being directed at the system. It's not healthy for society and I don't see it ending up anywhere good.

View on HN

Wealth distribution is a big problem, because the richest can essentially buy the government (and that's exactly what they have been doing) [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/20...]

But if you took the money from the 1% and distributed it to everyone, it would probably amount to a few thousand dollars each, at best.

The reason for lack of jobs is the they all went to India, China, etc.

As for immigrants, don;t you think there is something awfully wrong with the fact that Massachusetts for years provided housing and money to the Tsarnaev family (the Boston bombers and their parents), yet war veterans are often homeless, because there is never any money left to take care of them?

This buying the government is terrifyingly real. In university I once went to a dinner/seminar hosted by one of the top three law firms in DC, where we were instructed on how exactly to bribe congressmen. It turns out to buy a vote, a Representative is 10k and a Senator is 20k. They walked us through how we could give bonuses to employees with the understanding that part of that money would be written as maximum individual size checks to the campaigns. We were assured that it was not illegal as long as these bonuses and donations to not match in space and time. The law firm offered to prepare the appropriation text to be inserted into an omnibus. Then once it passed the money would be laundered through the Dept of Education, the Dept Labor, the Dept of Defense, or other Dept that would take a 15% cut for the service. Then we would be awarded the money, or get a tax credit, or so on. The law firm charged another 15% for their service, and would charge half now half on delivery.

This is the instruction that the children of the ruling elite are getting at Ivy Leagues, it permeates the entire culture of the privileged class.

  We were assured that it was not illegal as long as these
  bonuses and donations to not match in space and time.

It's absolutely illegal. What he was apparently trying to convey is that it you are less likely to be caught if the contributions are spread out.

Yes that is true, bribery is illegal and this kind of conspiracy is bad. But if you spread it out and do not put anything in writing, it will be hell for the IRS to prove this. And if you are the type of person who attended this, you have a personal lawyer that you got when you turned 16. It will be very difficult to ever press this to a conviction. And remember, the various departments of the executive branch are in on this, they are the ones laundering the money and further removing it from the original bill that released the funds from the treasury.

> But if you took the money from the 1% and distributed it to everyone, it would probably amount to a few thousand dollars each, at best.

That's patently absurd, given that the top 1% own 90%+ of the wealth.

> given that the top 1% own 90%+ of the wealth.

Citation, please? https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi... page 24 claims that globally the top 8.1% own 84.6% of the wealth, while the top 0.7% own 45.2%. So the top 1% owns something between those two numbers.

Within the US, the top 1% owns an even smaller fraction (of a bigger per-capita pie), because there are many fewer poor people.

That said, the top 1% do own quite a bit of wealth. Same report, page 15, figure 2, looks to me like total global wealth is about $260 trillion as of 2015. World population is 7.3 billion. That comes out to $35000 per person or so. So globally this number would in fact come out higher than a few thousand dollars; per our calculations above it's about 0.5 to 0.85 times $35k (but note that this is including the the "1%" quite a large number of US retirees, for example; the threshold for 1% global wealth is not that high).

If you look at the US, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#We... has numbers for 2007 saying that the top 1% owned 34.6% of the total wealth but that grew to 37.1% after the Great Recession. Total wealth in the US according to the above Credit Suisse report is about $86 trillion; that gives about $100,000 per person if you redistribute the wealth of the top 1%.

  >  It's not healthy for society and I don't see it ending
  >  up anywhere good.

It's a symptom. The disease is the dysfunctional system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com