Hacker News Reader

Comment by slibhb | Hacker News Reader

The chunk of the economy you own should be proportionate to the amount you contributed to growing the economy. In modern, functioning economies, this is more or less the case.

The idea that inequality will lead to lopsided political power hasn't yet been proven. If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump.

People who focus so much on inequality should rethink their priorities. Actually, living in a highly unequal economy is fine as long as:

1. Wealth is highly correlated to productivity

2. The poor have access to the necessities

View on HN

>People who focus so much on inequality should rethink their priorities. Actually, living in a highly unequal economy is fine as long as.

I don't think anybody cares much about the inequality itself (if anything, most people to care actually benefit from it), but apparent positive feedback loop that converts more wealth into more political power into more wealth, which seems to undermine first caveat you mentioned and also apparent erosion of the second at the same time.

"If the 100 richest Americans decided who was president, it would be someone like Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg -- not Donald Trump."

That's an interesting question. I haven't seen a poll of the richest US citizens. Which is odd, considering our general obsession with wealth. I suspect that, between Harris and Trump, the 100 richest would go for Trump.

I probably shouldn't have chosen 100. But, say, the top 1%, 5%, or 10% -- I think would go for a moderate liberal over someone like Trump.

Of course, Harris outspent Trump considerably which is another piece of evidence against the whole "money owns politics" story.

You've not interacted the kool-aid drinkers. C.Yarvin is doing some sith lord 'mind to pudding' on these folk. Reason is out the window when 'rationality' walks in the door.

It's a testable theory. I personally would love to see a poll that breaks down support by wealth. But of course, that's not enough. The presidential winner isn't the person who gets the most votes, it's the person who gets the majority of the majority of states. So we'd need a breakdown on wealth & residency to get an accurate view. This is important, because the top 10% in Alabama probably wouldn't be in the top 10% in New Jersey.

No idea who they'd support. But if I was a gambling man I'd put my money on Trump in that poll as well.

> which is another piece of evidence

N=1, and ignoring the fact that the only people who can run for president in the first place are those with billions in backing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com