Spending 3000 words arguing against a strawman in favor of a very damaging economic phenomenon.
Graham's selfishness and greed is disgusting.
Contrast with Paul Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/01/opinion/privilege-patholog...
Economic Inequality
301–310 of 580 posts
Re: Economic Inequality
#302[deleted]
Re: Economic Inequality
#303Graham is arguing against an enormous straw man. Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”. The most extreme proposals I’ve seen in America are ones like, “institute an unconditional basic income as an alternative to means-tested welfare programs,” or “allow every citizen/resident into a single-payer healthcare system,” or “go back to the tax structure of the 195…
On that note: the most offensive economic inequality isn't the 1% vs. the 99%, which successful startup founders would find themselves on the wrong side of. It's more about the 80 individuals with more wealth than half the world's population [1] – which, yes, does include "startup founders" such as Gates, Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Page & Brin, etc. But the vast majority of successful startup founders aren't in this…
[deleted]
Re: Economic Inequality
#304Economic inequality is harmful when it results in centralization of power, where decisions are increasingly top-down and made by a smaller number of people who are more out of touch because they're more insulated by wealth. This leads to bad decisions, and unhappiness among the increasing number of people who sense that they have no meaningful participation in society. "Can you have a healthy society with great varia…
Yeah, this is the part of the essay where I really did a double-take. He actually writes: "Can you have a healthy society with great variation in wealth? What would it look like? Notice how novel it feels to think about that."
That is not novel at all. The connection between economic power and political power is a very old subject. Complaints about the influence of money in politics and hence about the influence of inequality in politics are probably only slightly younger than politics itself. I have been saying for years that one of the most important reasons for being critical of (excessive) economic inequality is that it destabilizes democracy, since the market is fundamentally one-dollar-one-vote rather than one-person-one-vote.
Re: Economic Inequality
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
They built something that people wanted. Most startups today aren't really creating brand-new "value" (which is a horribly nebulous term, hence I'll leave it in quotes), but rather taking part in a shifting of existing "value" from place to place, and the VCs who fund them glean some profit out of the process. And some of the most controversial startups are doing this not by offering genuinely better products or serv…
>but bringing the price down by simply ignoring laws and regulations their competitors are required to abide by. You're right, in a lot of cases (Taxis vs Uber comes to mind) the government has created these sub-optimal local maximums with its unnecessary regulations and industry protectionism. Technology is the big energy input needed to break free and move to a new maximum. When I use Uber, I get much more value th…
Ah yes, the evil gubmint did it.
Well, you have fun with that.
Re: Economic Inequality
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do they have to "contribute to society"? This gets to the core of the question! How did a rich startup person get wealthy anyway? They built something that people wanted. People said: "hey, that thing you built, I value it at $20 and you're giving it away at $10, so I'm happy to buy it!" Anyone who made money from business has already created wealth and contributed to society, via the market. To the people who…
I couldn't agree more. Capitalist wealth comes from repeated consensual and mutually beneficial transactions. If you want to get rich, create value for people. It really is a wonderful system.
Poe's law invoked.
Re: Economic Inequality
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't agree more. Capitalist wealth comes from repeated consensual and mutually beneficial transactions. If you want to get rich, create value for people. It really is a wonderful system.
Poe's law invoked.
It's depressing that the idea at the core of our prosperity is dismissed by some as an extreme view indistinguishable from parody. Thankfully, people like Friedman and Hayek have laid down a rock-solid intellectual defense of capitalism. We ignore their wisdom at our own peril.
Re: Economic Inequality
#308"Economic Inequality is a Red Herring" might've been a better title.
He's probably right that economic inequality itself is not a huge problem. But he could be wrong. Maybe it should be illegal for any person to amass more than $1 billion or some reasonable limit. Individuals with massive fortunes might always threaten democracy.
The Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson are examples of how corrupting they can be. Zuckerberg could start buying elections the same way with his new $45 billion LLC. Michael Bloomberg bought himself high political office. Mitt Romney tried. Donald Trump is trying again.
Supposedly 200 families have funded 50% of the 2016 election. One solution is to close every possible loophole they use to exert their influence over politicians. Another solution is to cap wealth at some high number, limiting the potential damage.
Heck, the unprecedented wealth of Crassus was the proximate cause of the fall of the Roman Republic. Crassus used his massive fortune to finance Caesar's very expensive political career, including bribing politicians left and right.
Didn't Hitler also rely on the backing of a few wealthy industrialists in his rise to power?
Re: Economic Inequality
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but bringing the price down by simply ignoring laws and regulations their competitors are required to abide by. You're right, in a lot of cases (Taxis vs Uber comes to mind) the government has created these sub-optimal local maximums with its unnecessary regulations and industry protectionism. Technology is the big energy input needed to break free and move to a new maximum. When I use Uber, I get much more value th…
Ah yes, the evil gubmint did it. Well, you have fun with that.
I'm addressing your specific argument here:
>but bringing the price down by simply ignoring laws and regulations their competitors are required to abide by.
Re: Economic Inequality
#310> So when I hear people saying that economic inequality is bad and should be eliminated, I feel rather like a wild animal overhearing a conversation between hunters. But the thing that strikes me most about the conversations I overhear is how confused they are. They don't even seem clear whether they want to kill me or not. Straw man aside, I continue to be deeply concerned about individuals who spend their time beli…
I think there is some validity to Graham's paranoia.
There is another way to characterize the trends that Paul Graham observes. Perhaps growing economic inequality is a natural consequence of capitalism itself, and the "defragmentation" (or greater economic socialization) of the economy brought about by World War II was only a temporary reprieve from the overall trend toward greater inequality.
This view is essentially Marx's original critique that, given enough time, capitalism will destroy itself. As wealth accumulates at the upper end of the income spectrum, it has a self-reinforcing and accelerating feedback effect: greater wealth purchases greater political and social influence, which enables even greater wealth production, often at the expense of the poor and the less wealthy. The system inevitably sows the seeds of its own destruction.
History has shown that massive inequalities lead to instability and revolution. As a self-admitted beneficiary and generator of said inequality, Graham is right to be worried about how he would do during such a period of instability.