Economic Inequality • Hacker News Board

Re: Economic Inequality

#381

Post by chroma » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 10:43 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #373

chroma wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think PG is attacking a straw man at all. In my career as a software engineer, I've run into a significant number of outright communists. Like most of us, they keep their political opinions to themselves most of the time. But occasionally, they let slip how they would welcome revolution. I don't want to name names or expose people who don't want to be exposed, so I'll just give one prominent example. Steve Kl…

I haven't read through the links you cited, just the excerpt. A lot of non-communists cite Marx. My economics professors in University certainly did, including one who advocated eliminating corporate taxes.

Out of everything I said, I'm surprised this is the thing that's contested. Just scroll through his Twitter feed. Here are a few recent ones:

https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682787891936948224

https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682788969843658752

https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682787609446330368

https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682787371235016705

He retweeted this: https://twitter.com/kantrn/status/683385220167368704

https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682759650362658816

https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682759288012554240

Heck, his Twitter profile pic is a communist logo. His Twitter bio says, "Every loss for a worker is loss for all of us and every gain for a part of the working class is a victory for all." That's a quote from the Industrial Workers of the World[1].

I don't know how much more communist one can get.

1. http://www.iww.org/content/iww-greece-announcement-regarding...

Re: Economic Inequality

#382

Post by wildmusings » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 10:43 PM UTC

TuringTest wrote: post #353

wildmusings wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's because the laissez-faire market forces you invoke are not the core of our prosperity, just one of the factors leading to it, so your comment did sound as an extreme parody of a right wing position (which may be more or less reasonable depending on how strongly you support it). Friedman and Hayek wrote their work before we had a thorough understanding of how complex systems are optimized. Thanks to more powerf…

Interestingly, Friedman, and I think Hayek as well, supported a universal basic income. Friedman called it a negative income tax, but its the same premise. I think a lot of laissez-faire capitalists would get behind that idea, if it was coupled by the permanent abolition of all other welfare programs and most labor regulations. It's definitely an idea I can get behind.

It would require some constitutional amendment for both sides to trust each other enough.

Re: Economic Inequality

#383

Post by totemizer » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 10:44 PM UTC

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…

I am actually suggesting that we end all economic inequality. The only reason I don't argue for "end all inequality" is that it's physically impossible as much as we know it. Economy should be about what is good for everyone, it shouldn't contain anything which can be used to exploit other humans due to their "economic circumstances". The current system does allow it, and as long as you can attach a number to any person to get their value or "worth", there will be no change towards equality, maybe less inequality. Which is not enough because while the possibility is open, it will always fluctuate.

Re: Economic Inequality

#384

Post by graeme » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 10:48 PM UTC

chroma wrote: post #381

graeme wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read through the links you cited, just the excerpt. A lot of non-communists cite Marx. My economics professors in University certainly did, including one who advocated eliminating corporate taxes.

Out of everything I said, I'm surprised this is the thing that's contested. Just scroll through his Twitter feed. Here are a few recent ones: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682787891936948224 https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682788969843658752 https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682787609446330368 https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/682787371235016705 He retweeted this: https://twitter.com/kan…

Right, that looks pretty clear then. I guess I meant to say that citing his summarizing of Marx is a pretty poor way to suggest someone is a communist, if you can link to something that literally says "I am a communist". Plenty of non-communists cite Marx.

Re: Economic Inequality

#385

Post by natrius » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

staunch wrote: post #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. Zucker…

We can stop amassed wealth from threatening our democracy without limiting wealth itself. I don't care how much wealth people have, but I care how they use it to subvert our democracy. We've been trying to solve this problem with laws, but lawmakers can be subverted with wealth, too.

Instead of trying to stop excess political spending, we should eliminate the incentive to accept excess political spending. People accept money to influence our democracy because they can use that money to get whatever they want from almost anyone, including you. You can't opt out because economic power is invisible. But we can make it visible, and give every individual the freedom to reject economic power that they feel is misused.

This is merit capitalism. http://meritcapitalism.com/

Re: Economic Inequality

#386

Post by jubalfh » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 10:52 PM UTC

chroma wrote: post #366

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…

I don't think PG is attacking a straw man at all. In my career as a software engineer, I've run into a significant number of outright communists. Like most of us, they keep their political opinions to themselves most of the time. But occasionally, they let slip how they would welcome revolution. I don't want to name names or expose people who don't want to be exposed, so I'll just give one prominent example. Steve Kl…

What's wrong with being a socialist (or even a communist)?

Re: Economic Inequality

#387

Post by BobTheCoder » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 10:54 PM UTC

I don't think many people are saying that income inequality itself is the problem. It is the level of inequality and rate with which it is increasing that is the problem.

Also you can't say poverty is the only possible issue related to wealth distribution. Due to technology and globalization there is a tremendous amount of wealth. Exceedingly disproportionate distribution of it, far beyond effort/brilliance/whatever is unfair for the majority and IS a problem.

Re: Economic Inequality

#388

Post by patrickaljord » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 10:56 PM UTC

totemizer wrote: post #383

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…

I am actually suggesting that we end all economic inequality. The only reason I don't argue for "end all inequality" is that it's physically impossible as much as we know it. Economy should be about what is good for everyone, it shouldn't contain anything which can be used to exploit other humans due to their "economic circumstances". The current system does allow it, and as long as you can attach a number to any per…

You cannot end all economic inequality without removing freedom. A free society where people can freely express their full potential will create inequalities by default. Even if we manage to give equal opportunities to everyone, some people will manage better than others. Some people are born to be Mozart and Newtons. That is just how it is, and when you are one of these people, with greater potential, you will accomplish more and people will be happy to give you more of their money to enjoy your work, making you unequally richer than they are. There is no way around that. You could have given me a billion to get started and I would still not have written the magic flute or written a revolutionary algorithm.

Societies who tried to remove all inequalities managed to create living hell where everyone was equally poor and unfree and not able to express their full potential while the ones with great potentials tried to flee such society. Just be careful what you ask for. For having grown up in a socialist hell myself (Syria), I wouldn't go back to such a place (even without the war).

Re: Economic Inequality

#389

Post by cvwright » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 11:01 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #368

cmurf wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a disingenuous rebuttal. The difference in wealth between someone worth $45B, and two people each worth $1 million and -$1million respectively, is identical. The millionaire is worth less than 0.01% of the first. If this were a card game, the millionaire could go piss himself. If it were possible to put $45B into a typical savings account earning 1% interest per year, that $45B person will make more money doi…

A practical problem of wealth accumulation is that it eventually becomes a moral hazard. If you have people with more $10B and a system of unlimited political contributions as in the US, they have so much power that it is difficult to maintain the democratic equilibrium. It is now known that the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson have more power over the republicans than the RNC, having elected hundreds of local and n…

Interestingly, at least according to The Atlantic, the political power of these billionaires seems to be failing. This article [1] frames the rise of Donald Trump (!) in the 2016 presidential race as an effect of the growing disconnect between billionaire donors like the Kochs and the Republican voting base.

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-grea...

Re: Economic Inequality

#390

Post by Mikeb85 » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 11:02 PM UTC

natrius wrote: post #378

Mikeb85 wrote: post #226

So much material, so little time (today, for me at least). A few of his key points that I noticed: > In the real world you can create wealth as well as taking it from others. A woodworker creates wealth. He makes a chair, and you willingly give him money in return for it. A high-frequency trader does not. He makes a dollar only when someone on the other end of a trade loses a dollar. Not surprising that he uses this…

Retail traders don't have liquidity needs on a sub-second basis. They'd all be better off with exchanges that used batch auctions. HFT is a tax on our economy. http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-lewis-high-frequency-...

No, retail traders don't. However if I go through my electronic broker, it's then trading on the 'real market' on my behalf, and the extra liquidity is much appreciated. And trading today is cheaper than ever before.

I actually started trading on the TSX-V market, which has super-low liquidity and no HFT players (not even sure if there are market makers for most of the stocks). It's pretty much my idea of what hell is like.

BTW, here's an interesting link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/26/relax-eve...

The thing about HFT, is that it's basically arbitrage. People used to do it manually, machines of course do it better. Now spreads are so small, there's basically no profit in it. The result, better liquidity than ever, smallest spreads in history. And yes I've read all the anti-HFT propaganda - but I'm also in the markets, and I like trading in high-liquidity markets, especially after trading in low-liquidity markets...