Economic Inequality • Hacker News Board

Re: Economic Inequality

#411

Post by patrickaljord » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 11:32 PM UTC

ap22213 wrote: post #401

patrickaljord wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accom…

And, some people are born Mozarts and Newtons, and we never hear of them because they they lack connections, access, leisure, and opportunity. I don't know what true socialism feels like, but I do know that whatever mixed system the U.S. has certainly doesn't feel like freedom. Whatever we have, I'd like to try something new because it's not working.

> And, some people are born Mozarts and Newtons, and we never hear of them because they they lack connections, access, leisure, and opportunity.

That's why I said even if we had 100% full equal opportunities, we would still have inequalities. Let's say 100% of people who are born Mozarts and Newtons got to be heard and succeed and all have great connections and equal opportunities, we would still have the same problem with people _not_ being born with such huge potential. That is, unless you believe we all are Mozarts and Newtons that weren't given the right opportunities and connections and here we'll have to disagree. Now, what kind of society gives better chance to succeed for everyone? Socialists ones with no freedom or the ones with the maximum freedoms? Reality says the latter.

Re: Economic Inequality

#412

Post by ap22213 » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 11:33 PM UTC

Why not just have one tax, a death tax? Set the barrier high enough so that people may will their children and grandchildren enough money to do nothing.

Re: Economic Inequality

#413

Post by Futurebot » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 11:38 PM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #411

ap22213 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, some people are born Mozarts and Newtons, and we never hear of them because they they lack connections, access, leisure, and opportunity. I don't know what true socialism feels like, but I do know that whatever mixed system the U.S. has certainly doesn't feel like freedom. Whatever we have, I'd like to try something new because it's not working.

> And, some people are born Mozarts and Newtons, and we never hear of them because they they lack connections, access, leisure, and opportunity. That's why I said even if we had 100% full equal opportunities, we would still have inequalities. Let's say 100% of people who are born Mozarts and Newtons got to be heard and succeed and all have great connections and equal opportunities, we would still have the same proble…

Those aren't the only two choices. The west, and even many in the east, are made up of mixed economies. Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and many others are extremely successful mixed economies by most measures (see OECD stats to start.) In the US, the mix is currently wildly out of whack; it needs to move back towards broadly shared prosperity, rather than the oligarchy we have now. That means higher taxes on the wealthy, better social programs, redistribution, and all the rest.

Read "Twilight of the Elites." Few are arguing for zero inequality; even anti-inequality crusaders acknowledge there will always be some inequality. It depends on how much, and what that affords the society. The amount we have now is wildly out of balance. We have models that work better in the world, and even in America's past, and should look to those.

No one is arguing for communism anymore (the implications of the poster higher up notwithstanding), except those that are largely irrelevant to the debate.

Re: Economic Inequality

#414

Post by chroma » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 11:39 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #402

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…

As I've said on Twitter, I'm not _exacty_ a communist. I am far left, but the differences matter only if you're already a leftist. I think "anti capitalist" is the more accurate umbrella term. I'm also one of the highest karma people on this very site. ;)

Apologies for not using the exact terms. While I have your attention: Would you agree that PG is not arguing against a straw man? That you, in fact, would like to prevent people from getting rich and end all economic inequality, and that many others share your beliefs? Considering that jacobolus's comment is at the top, I think it's important to know whether it's correct or not.

BTW, thank you for all your contributions to Rust, Rails, and countless other open source libraries and modules. Your work has benefitted millions.

Re: Economic Inequality

#415

Post by steveklabnik » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 11:45 PM UTC

chroma wrote: post #414

steveklabnik wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I've said on Twitter, I'm not _exacty_ a communist. I am far left, but the differences matter only if you're already a leftist. I think "anti capitalist" is the more accurate umbrella term. I'm also one of the highest karma people on this very site. ;)

Apologies for not using the exact terms. While I have your attention: Would you agree that PG is not arguing against a straw man? That you, in fact, would like to prevent people from getting rich and end all economic inequality, and that many others share your beliefs? Considering that jacobolus's comment is at the top, I think it's important to know whether it's correct or not. BTW, thank you for all your contributi…

I am out at a bar with friends, so I have not read the article. I just check things every so often and saw that I was mentioned. It's an inherently complex subject, and like I said, the details don't really matter unless you really care about them. It's just important that if someone calls me "communist", they don't think that I have no criticism of anything related to communism, because I do.

Re: Economic Inequality

#416

Post by zo1 » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 11:48 PM UTC

throwupper247 wrote: post #330

civilian wrote: post #254

Earlier 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…

Selling something that people want isn't equal to providing value. Let me be pessimistic: coffee doesn't provide a positive value, because it's a drug that get's people addicted however little and subliminal. Maybe that is a value to society in general, but it isn't to the individual. The car definitely is an economic nessecity in some parts. I don't know what refridgerator oligarchy you are refering to and it specif…

>"Selling something that people want isn't equal to providing value. Let me be pessimistic: coffee doesn't provide a positive value, because it's a drug that get's people addicted however little and subliminal. Maybe that is a value to society in general, but it isn't to the individual."

If you don't think someone selling you coffee that you want is providing value, then perhaps you should try make your own. Once you have to "spend" time to physically make/get yourself the good/product that you wanted, you'll quickly learn what "value" a seller provides. Technically, not the seller as much as the actual producer, but the seller provides value as well. And in most examples represents the entire supply chain.

Re: Economic Inequality

#417

Post by murbard2 » Sat, Jan 02, 2016, 11:58 PM UTC

srean wrote: post #362

civilian wrote: post #254

Earlier 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…

> Anyone who made money from business has already created wealth and contributed to society, via the market. What in your opinion would be the contribution of a high frequency trader to a society or an individual ? Getting markets to be arbitrage less at sub-mili-second time scales was a pressing problem for no one. For some of the other industries, if you price the externalities, it is far from clear if they are pro…

It's not a large problem and that's exactly why the high frequency trading industry is tiny. You only think it's big because it gets disproportionate attention in the media.

Re: Economic Inequality

#418

Post by zo1 » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 12:13 AM UTC

dmoo wrote: post #344

GavinMcG wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there any danger that such levels of inequality reach a tipping point where the have nots band together and say why don't we take some of that for us. We have the numbers to either change the law or take by force. Such things are not unknown in history...

I'd argue it's been happening at a stead pace already. It happened at a "manageable" level when progressive taxation came into place for example. Sin taxes, luxury taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, emigration/exit taxes... All of these things are arguably a form of "have nots band[ing] together and say[ing] why don't we take some of that for us."

Re: Economic Inequality

#419

Post by patrickaljord » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 12:17 AM UTC

Futurebot wrote: post #413

patrickaljord wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And, some people are born Mozarts and Newtons, and we never hear of them because they they lack connections, access, leisure, and opportunity. That's why I said even if we had 100% full equal opportunities, we would still have inequalities. Let's say 100% of people who are born Mozarts and Newtons got to be heard and succeed and all have great connections and equal opportunities, we would still have the same proble…

Those aren't the only two choices. The west, and even many in the east, are made up of mixed economies. Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and many others are extremely successful mixed economies by most measures (see OECD stats to start.) In the US, the mix is currently wildly out of whack; it needs to move back towards broadly shared prosperity, rather than the oligarchy we have now. That means higher taxes on the…

I live in France, I can tell you that most of the countries you list here built their wealth before building their huge welfare state and that it's now turned into a money losing machine nightmare which are being urgently reformed as you read this. It's also turned people against one another and created more racism for a simple reason. Given that the welfare state takes money from people and redistributes it to others by force, as the "others" grow larger due to immigration, people start to hate on immigrants for shrinking the part of the pie they think they deserve (even if the welfare state is responsible for more people being on welfare, not immigrants). A huge welfare state also discourages many people from working, making it more difficult for immigrants to integrate like they used to and creating tensions and resentment from the part of the population that works and the one that does not. This is why most Muslims in the US are well integrated while in Europe they are pushed into ghettos and victim of racism. All this because we believe that it's better for people to be unemployed than being on a lower wage when in reality it's the opposite.

Re: Economic Inequality

#420

Post by iaw » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 12:25 AM UTC

dojomouse wrote: post #406

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…

| Graham is arguing against an enormous straw man. Word. I don't know anyone who understands enough to actually have a discussion (e.g. isn't some back to nature hippy) and seriously thinks we should attempt to minimise the opportunities to create new wealth. Everyone I know who argues for reduced economic inequality favours increased minimum wages and/or redistributive mechanisms (income/wealth tax). I don't know if…

"Others will say I'm clueless or being misleading by focusing on people who get rich by creating wealth—that startups aren't the problem, but corrupt practices in finance, healthcare, and so on. Once again, that is exactly my point. The problem is not economic inequality, but those specific abuses."

Given the 2001 dot-com fiasco and the frequency of ratchets in fundraising I'm surprised that Paul would make an argument that the abuses of finance are separate from the start-up world. In the current system, startups are frequently treated as an investment vehicle by specialized finance firms. There is a lot of moral hazard in the valley that Paul seems to ignore in his piece.