Please edit out swipes and name-calling from your posts to HN, as the site guidelines request: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I realize you didn't start it, but we need commenters here to follow the rules regardless of what others are doing. (Otherwise we end up in a downward spiral: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...)

Edit: You did it elsewhere in this thread too - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44842213. That's not cool, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

Fortunately, your recent comment history looks mostly free of this kind of thing (that's good), so it should be easy to fix.

▲

Epa095 4 days ago | parent [-]

It's hard when people call me confused :-/ But I would edit it away if I could! But it seems like I can't edit this post anymore, should I be able to?

▲

dang 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The edit window has passed. But don't worry! all that matters is to correct things going forward.

▲

bluecalm 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	Epa095 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		So, talk me through where I am wrong. I will use the example in my sibling post you did not reply to. If you put 10 million into the S&P 500 in 2002 you would get a dividend of roughly 132k (1.32%). That's your share, as a owner, of the wealth produced that year across all the companies you own tiny parts of. Keep the money there, do absolutely nothing, and in 2025 it has grown to 70 million. Your yearly payout is roughly 925k, 7 times what it was 20 years ago. You agree with this? And then we compare that to wages, and see that they have grown significantly less. You agree to this as well? For sake of argument, let's say they doubled. From this I conclude: - Income from capital grows exponentially faster than income from salaries. - The person who invested 10 million in 2002 gets a larger fraction of what the economy produces compared to a salaried person today than 20 years ago. - That difference will increase if the stock market continues as it has done in the past. Please help me understand which conclusion you disagree with, and why.
	▲	dang 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This was not a good moment to start the argument all over again. Please don't harangue other users, regardless of how badly they're missing a point or you feel they are.