The 1% are the very best destroyers of wealth the world has ever seen | Hacker News Reader

The 1% are the very best destroyers of wealth the world has ever seen

theguardian.com

12 pointsbootload15 comments

"... The findings of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of a Nobel economics prize, are devastating to the beliefs that financial high-fliers entertain about themselves. He discovered that their apparent success is a cognitive illusion. ..."

Daniel Kahneman (2002, Nobel prize in Economics): ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

Gini coefficient/ratio/index (statistical measure of income distribution/wealth inequity): ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Sigh... These articles need to stop. People don't seem to realize that there's a larger difference between the 1% and the 0.5% than the 1% and the 99% in America.

Also, nobody seems to understand the difference between wealth and earnings. 1% wealth isn't the same as 1% earnings and is a hell of a lot better. I forget the stat but a surprising number of people in the US like 25% hit 1% earnings at some point in their life due to some event.

Articles like these will continue as long as envy can be used to fuel class warfare.

Your point has some merit, the dramatic breakaway is really in the 0.1% or so, but that's only a problem with the title and not the article. It's not talking about the 1% in America. Eg in the first instance it's talking about "senior managers and chief executives from leading British businesses", later "Branko Milanovic tries to discover who was the richest person who has ever lived" etc.

The only place with 1% is where they compare the income increase of the US top 1% vs the bottom fifth - yeah, there he should have used a smaller slice from the top (and the numbers would have been more dramatic). But maybe there aren't statistics available at that granularity, since he resorted to using the top 10% for the UK.

"... nobody seems to understand the difference between wealth and earnings ..."

Can you explain it for us ill educated folk?

> Chief executives now behave like dukes, extracting from their financial estates sums out of all proportion to the work they do or the value they generate, sums that sometimes exhaust the businesses they parasitise.

Biggest problem: some time in the future, this cash will inevitably reenter the financial system. As long as the cash stays locked, no problem there (as the central banks compensate by printing money)... but e.g. a "spending run" of a couple of billionaires in one year certainly has firepower.

Always remember Soros and the British Crown.

Blah..blah..blah, "the rich are psychopaths"...blah, blah.

This is just more classwarfare, neo-marxist drivel from a predictable rag like the guardian

"... Blah..blah..blah, ... This is just more ..."

Care to explain why?

(reminder to self: comments from accounts 77 day old account & Karma of 12, require higher degree of scrutiny)

Wow, only one paragraph article of this actually talks about wealth destruction. It starts off as a very ordinary article about corporate psychopaths, then half way through veers off into discussion about wealth inequality.

This kind of article does more harm than good for those who want to reduce inequality.

There are quite a few immediately available 'financial high-flyers' among the YC alumni. I'd venture that they've all achieved 1% status much more through intelligence, creativity, commitment and resourcefulness than by birthright, luck or psychopathy. This is a pretty cynical piece.

Monbiot is a rabid anti-capitalist; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot#Activism ...

"[the climate change campaign] is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves."

Bear in mind, he's describing something he supports, here. At least he's honest.

"... they've all achieved 1% status much more through intelligence, creativity, commitment and resourcefulness than by birthright, luck or psychopathy ..."

I don't disagree with this statement for founders being truly having the 'intelligent, creative, committed and resourceful' attributes you state but are they 100% responsible for the outcome? Are these attributes true indicators of their success? Is this misattribution bias after the fact?

Follow the money.

What would a 'high-flyer' breakdown look like? Would they be mostly US based (including foreign born), White/Asian, tertiary educated males? (bias acknowledgement).

Did they need extra funding? How many received VC money? How did the VC choose one particular company/idea over others (by skill or luck?) How did the founders get their money? (hint: is it harder for non validated entities to raise VC money or not?)

Given the high failure rate of Startups and VC investment, the article may well apply to those who supply capital.

Go learn the difference between rent seekers and the productive.

Only Monbiot could leap from the - correct, repeatable - conclusions of the study he first cites to the Marxist claptrap with which he concludes. Drivel, utter drivel, and fuelled by hatred.

"... leap from the - correct, repeatable - conclusions of the study he first cites to the Marxist claptrap with which he concludes. Drivel, utter drivel, and fuelled by hatred. ..."

It's not marxist to suggest there's a problem between senior executives in corporations who are rewarded and reward themselves for failures (Finance & banking GFC) & unwanted externalities (Energy & C02 emissions) or illegality (Media & phone tapping).

I don't think Monbiot is implying founders or creators of tech business automatically fall into that category. Though given the some of the problems in Startup land (female founders face, tech companies colluding on workers and corporate data gathering) I wouldn't say technology companies are immune. I understand your skepticism of Monboit but he's not a 'Jason Ogle'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com