Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic Inequality

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 580 posts

Re: Economic Inequality

#311

Post by js8 »

lazyjones wrote: post #172
rst wrote: post #4

Central thesis (hidden a bit): "ending economic inequality would mean ending startups". So, who is the straw man who advocates completely ending economic inequality? Even left wingers in Europe (far to the left of anyone mainstream in the US) talk mainly of reducing it. So, if economic inequality were substantially reduced, would there still be startups? I believe another piece of common advice in this field is that…

> So, if economic inequality were substantially reduced, would there still be startups? There would be - but as the article points out correctly elsewhere, they would be in other countries. > I believe another piece of common advice in this field is that you should only do a startup if you want to change the world, not just to get rich... Nobody does it just to get rich, but (as the article also points out...) few fo…

> few founders would go through that pain if there wasn't a chance to get rich

I don't understand why should economic system be based on heroism. I frankly don't think anyone should be required to work more than 40 hrs/week (or even less) unless they want to.

And I think basing economic system on these extremes is misguided. So it will take couple more years to invent, I don't know, Snapchat.. what is the big deal?

Re: Economic Inequality

#312

Post by hammerandtongs »

cryoshon wrote: post #256
hammerandtongs wrote: post #160

I LOVE that Paul Graham posted this just a day after posting Mark Twain's "corn-pone opinions" with no sense of irony or self awareness. """ "You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."... The black philosopher's idea was that a man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter. If he would prosper, he must train with the majority; i…

I noticed this exact same thing. Funny how awareness of a cognitive trope doesn't confer protection, eh? Anyways, hypocrisy haunts us all.

It's particularly disturbing when his wealth makes him influential.

He has the material means to not need corn-pone opinions but instead holds to them and encourages them in his followers.

Re: Economic Inequality

#313

Post by wstrange »

notahacker wrote: post #283
wstrange wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's start with the Koch brothers, who will spend $889 million this year to sway the election.

In fairness, I've always seen the Koch brothers as a heartening example of the limitations to the ability of individuals to buy government. They had to give up on the Libertarian Party and can't buy the Republican caucus, never mind swing the election. On the other hand, if it wasn't for the Koch brothers it's distinctly possible that few people would have heard of Austrian economics, and most of those would be acade…

I would not discount the influence of their lobbying efforts.

The Koch's helped to drag the debate so far to the right that even the Democrats look like a conservative party.

Perhaps their money won't buy them the party they want - but it certainly will kibosh any talk of significant tax increases on the wealthy, or single payer health care.

(disclaimer: I am from Canada - so an outside observer of US politics).

Re: Economic Inequality

#315

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

Frondo wrote: post #258
mtgx wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, income inequality means: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. But that is not the situation. In reality, the situation is: A rising tide raises all boats. If that was the case, then most people's incomes (adjusted for inflation) would be higher than they were 40 years ago. But that's not true. However, it can be argued that low-income people can now buy "stuff" cheaper than they ever could. Whether that…

Yeah, poor people can buy tv sets and cell phones now. Those things are definitely cheaper than they used to be. You know what's not cheaper than it used to be? The big ones: housing, health care, education. That's the problem. People look at how almost everyone has a refrigerator, and a ton of poor people have tv sets, and think "they're not hard off at all!!!1! rising tides!! boates!!!" while ignoring how rents are…

Haha, nominally affordable. Thanks to Obamacare, my health care premium went up 30% and everyone in my family had to change primary care doctors, including my kids, who'd been seeing the same pediatrician for 16 and 18 years.

Re: Economic Inequality

#316

Post by s0uthPaw88 »

karzeem wrote: post #185
geofft wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These sorts of discussions always go downhill because they very quickly turn into defending (and attacking) people as if their identity is inextricably linked to their wealth, which means that policy discussions are read (and sometimes written) as personal attacks. Can we do better than that, please? I don't see a claim that any of these folks are bad people for their money. Gates, for instance, is doing extraordinar…

Empirically, how well do you feel the US government spends its budget currently? There's often an assumption in these discussions that if a billionaire isn't spending their money in a socially optimal way, the government will spend it better. But if you look at how governments actually spend their money, you'll find very little evidence to support that assumption.

Government run social welfare programs are actually pretty efficient since they have huge economies of scale [1].

[1]http://www.cbpp.org/research/romneys-charge-that-most-federa...

Re: Economic Inequality

#317

Post by apsec112 »

jacobolus wrote: post #8

Graham 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…

"Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”."

FWIW, I've met tons of people who suggested this. Eg., at Google, I had a co-worker who was probably the best programmer on our team. He loudly and repeatedly argued for socialism (he literally used the word "socialism"), and for government seizure of all private property over some low-ish threshold per person. He very strongly believed that no one could ever earn the right to be rich, and that rich people were so bad for democracy that well-run countries shouldn't have any.

Re: Economic Inequality

#318

Post by [deleted] »

apsec112 wrote: post #317
jacobolus wrote: post #8

Graham 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…

"Nobody is suggesting that we “prevent people from getting rich” or “end all economic inequality”." FWIW, I've met tons of people who suggested this. Eg., at Google, I had a co-worker who was probably the best programmer on our team. He loudly and repeatedly argued for socialism (he literally used the word "socialism"), and for government seizure of all private property over some low-ish threshold per person. He very…

[deleted]

Re: Economic Inequality

#319

Post by xchaotic »

The article seems to overlook the fact that most of the 'value added' is created out of thin air and people can only tolerate so much bs. So while something like the value of Facebook likes is not immediately stealing money from ikea furniture it is taking the attention away, there is still a finite pool of brains and eyeballs and people only have so much attention span. It's not like you can create value ad infinitum without adding eyeballs or resources. Hence Facebook 'Internet Basics' attempts and such

Re: Economic Inequality

#320

Post by thruflo »

Wealth inequality may be seeded by value creation but it's perpetuated by (compound) interest. At the end of any time period, those who start with more money end with even more money.

Investing in startups creates wealth equality in so far that it increases the return on investment (interest) that investors (those who start with the money) achieve.

Post reply on HN