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

Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

blog.rongarret.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 242 posts

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#121

Post by loki49152 »

MrTonyD wrote: post #14
rayiner wrote: post #10

Mr. Garret quotes Sanders: > The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. I am rather puzzled that this idea gets so much traction. Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart a…

It took me years to realize that economics isn't physics - and it isn't ruled by physics-like laws. Instead, economics is governed by laws created by our society. And what we think of as "free market" is really just norms of trade which are created by our society. There is no reason why the bulk of the billions taken-in by WalMart should go to the Walton family while their employees live on food-stamps - that is just…

It's interesting that you faced this issue and came away with the exactly wrong conclusion. Economics is, at root, a physics problem. There's no way to get around that. Every aspect of the field comes down to asking questions about physical resources and their uses.

People can attempt to ignore the fact that economics is a special application of physics, but they can't escape the consequences of ignoring reality forever. The belief that it's all just conventions and cultural agreements is exactly like believing that the Moon is just a bedtime story.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#122

Post by afarrell »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #116
rayiner wrote: post #10

Mr. Garret quotes Sanders: > The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. I am rather puzzled that this idea gets so much traction. Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart a…

> Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart and Amazon? We're talking about corruption and you're listing companies best known for getting where they are through aggressive free market competition. Can't we come up with some better examples than that? AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, AIG, Monsanto, Elsevier, Microsoft,…

I'm curious in what ways Monsanto is corrupt. Forgive me if this sounds like an obvious point, but I've seen too much GMOphobic noise around this to know where the signal is.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#123

Post by thatcat »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #103
Turing_Machine wrote: post #98

"I think the propaganda of "The Communists" has been drilled into the American public so solidly" You mean the part where communists murdered 100 million people in the last century? That "propaganda"?

Do you think modding this down is going to make those 100 million corpses go away? 'Cause it isn't.

you didn't provide a capitalism death count to compare it to

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#124

Post by rubyfan »

MrTonyD wrote: post #30
UK-AL wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe in property rights? Having a legal/police system to catch people who forcebly take property? Using trade to exchange property? This is the core of our system. And that system will always generate inequality. Not necessarily a bad thing. You can have laws to take the edge off inequality generated, but at the core of the system you can't really avoid it.

I believe in property rights to the extent that they benefit our society. That means that I don't believe in property rights as defined by the rich.

The good of society comes as a side benefit of the individual's right to enjoy one's own property... Not the other way around.

That we are debating the goodness of property rights in this day is a mystery to me.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#125

Post by yummyfajitas »

RodericDay wrote: post #55
MrTonyD wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took me years to realize that economics isn't physics - and it isn't ruled by physics-like laws. Instead, economics is governed by laws created by our society. And what we think of as "free market" is really just norms of trade which are created by our society. There is no reason why the bulk of the billions taken-in by WalMart should go to the Walton family while their employees live on food-stamps - that is just…

Zizek phrased it kind of nicely once, in a way that stuck with me. He probably borrowed from somewhere, and I'll continue to lossily reproduce whatever the sentiment was, but it goes something like this. How is it possible that we are completely and utterly optimistic about breaking all sorts of physical barriers, like landing on Mars, and reusing rockets, and communicating worldwide via little handheld microcomputer…

The standard left wing complaint is that billionaires don't have enough lavish parties, but instead reinvest their wealth in new productive capacity. See, e.g., Picketty, Krugman, or anyone favoring stimulus directed at the bottom of the income distribution. Do you dispute this?

As for erasing class distinctions, consider the possibility that we already have. Imagine telling a person in 1915 about the world today; the children of rich struggling hard in school with the goal of getting a job where they can work hard in order to provide consumption for the poor (who mostly don't work). These rich people will wear the same hoodies and turtlenecks as anyone else, live in moderately larger houses than the poor (or at least in moderately nicer locations), and have virtually no goods and services that are unavailable to the poor.

Would this modern world not count as wildly imaginative?

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#126

Post by jqm »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #103
Turing_Machine wrote: post #98

"I think the propaganda of "The Communists" has been drilled into the American public so solidly" You mean the part where communists murdered 100 million people in the last century? That "propaganda"?

Do you think modding this down is going to make those 100 million corpses go away? 'Cause it isn't.

Religion has killed a lot of people as well. In fact, for that matter so has capitalism. But I don't necessarily blame the ideas of religion or capitalism for the deaths.

In truth, the point is a bit worn out and overused and doesn't say much about the underlying ideology.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#127

Post by jack9 »

loki49152 wrote: post #121
MrTonyD wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took me years to realize that economics isn't physics - and it isn't ruled by physics-like laws. Instead, economics is governed by laws created by our society. And what we think of as "free market" is really just norms of trade which are created by our society. There is no reason why the bulk of the billions taken-in by WalMart should go to the Walton family while their employees live on food-stamps - that is just…

It's interesting that you faced this issue and came away with the exactly wrong conclusion. Economics is, at root, a physics problem. There's no way to get around that. Every aspect of the field comes down to asking questions about physical resources and their uses. People can attempt to ignore the fact that economics is a special application of physics, but they can't escape the consequences of ignoring reality fore…

> Every aspect of the field comes down to asking questions about physical resources and their uses.

Nope. Moving 200 million in rock or 200 million in a paper check (or even a promise-based conversation). The extractable amount/usage of Labor and Resources outstrip the human ability to account for it. This has less to do with physics and more to do with "accounting". Without accounting you cannot have negative wealth, for example. This is not tied to physics. This is based on social contracts...all the way down to the currency.

I am a little interested in this physics-based economy you speak of.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#128

Post by jqm »

natrius wrote: post #58
RodericDay wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zizek phrased it kind of nicely once, in a way that stuck with me. He probably borrowed from somewhere, and I'll continue to lossily reproduce whatever the sentiment was, but it goes something like this. How is it possible that we are completely and utterly optimistic about breaking all sorts of physical barriers, like landing on Mars, and reusing rockets, and communicating worldwide via little handheld microcomputer…

Communism happened. It killed lots of people, and made radical changes in the social order unappealing to most. Now ideas don't just have to sound plausible, but you also have to prove that they won't lead to the deaths of millions.

You don't have to prove that ideas won't lead to the deaths of millions at all. Right now there are a bounty of ideas floating around, many the basis of whole civilizations and governments which very possibly could lead to the death of millions if left to finish course. And nary a peep.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#129

Post by jqm »

paganel wrote: post #36
UK-AL wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe in property rights? Having a legal/police system to catch people who forcebly take property? Using trade to exchange property? This is the core of our system. And that system will always generate inequality. Not necessarily a bad thing. You can have laws to take the edge off inequality generated, but at the core of the system you can't really avoid it.

> Do you believe in property rights? Not the OP, but I think a lot more people nowadays should read (or re-read) Locke's "Two Treatises of Government". That book is famous mostly for the second part, where Locke actually intellectually imposes private property as a thing in the Western world, but I found the first part equally interesting, where Locke fights against a guy called Filmer, who was of the opinion (preval…

There are two components of private property. 1)the raw materials (or land) 2)the labor (or improvements).

I agree with your stance on component 1. The raw materials, the land, they do in fact manifestly belong to everyone.

On component 2, the labor or improvements, I don't think those do belong to everyone. They belong exclusively to the creator who can transfer title. In fact, society has no moral claim on this component at all in my estimation.

Here is my idea. Stop funding society by taxing labor. It's counterproductive. It's morally wrong. Tax material and land use. This is what society truly has a claim on and how society should fund itself.

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

#130

Post by puredemo »

gnaritas wrote: post #74
meagain20000 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's agree to disagree. While the current system, at least in the USA, is not perfect, it is still better than other systems tried in other countries. Things that I would fix is decrease corruption as much as possible. What you are advocating is communism. If you really believe in your system start a company and employ your ideals. I'm sure you will have no lack of talented individuals wanting to work for you for a…

> While the current system, at least in the USA, is not perfect, it is still better than other systems tried in other countries. No one said it wasn't. > Things that I would fix is decrease corruption as much as possible. As would I. > What you are advocating is communism. No it isn't, tax reform is not communism, I suggest you bone up on what communism actually is before continuing this conversation, nothing I said…

>You are suffering from the just world fallacy.

I think you're projecting. He is saying the world is harsh and unfair, and people need to work hard to mitigate that. That isn't a fallacy.

Post reply on HN