How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality” • Hacker News Board

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#121

Post by icebraining » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 11:41 PM UTC

throwaway_51661 wrote: post #77

evgen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from a former communist country, I don't understand why smart, capable people want to give away their money to a corrupt, incompetent state to manage it for them. Because the state is neither corrupt nor incompetent; this is the big fear of the cyber-selfish libertarians you will find on HN. Tell you what, why don't you start your rant with a list of these rich politicians who will grow even richer. Just a sin…

> Tell you what, why don't you start your rant with a list of these rich politicians who will grow even richer. Just a single name please. Hillary Clinton. https://www.rt.com/usa/327689-clinton-conflicts-state-depart... And BTW grandparent is 100% correct. This is EXACTLY how communism starts. First they come for the people who are rich and successful ... Throwaway account because it could hurt my career to declare m…

You know, $8M for 200 speeches isn't that much. People like Seth Godin and Malcolm Gladwell make ~$100k per speech, and they're not even former POTUSes.

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#122

Post by js8 » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 11:42 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #67

zappo2938 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of anything more democratic than using money to vote on how to best allocate resources. The reward for doing well is to get more money to decide how that should then be allocated. This system works great until it crosses a threshold when the most talented consolidate the ability to decide how to best allocate resources into a small group of people. A small group of billionaires deciding how to allocate…

Using money to vote on how to. allocate resources is plutocracy, which is pretty far from democracy.

Exactly. Democracy is designed to prevent the positive feedback loop where people who happen to have more resources can vote for things that gives them even more resources next time. If a system has this feedback loop, it's definitely not a democratic one.

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#123

Post by throwaway_51661 » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 11:47 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #121

throwaway_51661 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tell you what, why don't you start your rant with a list of these rich politicians who will grow even richer. Just a single name please. Hillary Clinton. https://www.rt.com/usa/327689-clinton-conflicts-state-depart... And BTW grandparent is 100% correct. This is EXACTLY how communism starts. First they come for the people who are rich and successful ... Throwaway account because it could hurt my career to declare m…

You know, $8M for 200 speeches isn't that much. People like Seth Godin and Malcolm Gladwell make ~$100k per speech, and they're not even former POTUSes.

The amount is not the point.

The point is, companies/lobby groups who directly benefitted from Hillary's decisions as a secretary of the state, paid Bill a lot of money to give speeches.

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#124

Post by sytelus » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 11:50 PM UTC

sradu wrote: post #30

Coming from a former communist country, I don't understand why smart, capable people want to give away their money to a corrupt, incompetent state to manage it for them. The US is fundamentally different than Nordic countries, where socialism appears to be working: * The Nordic countries are tiny compared to the US. * They are highly educated. * Their society is homogenous. It seems like everybody is assuming that th…

No, increased government income is not required to decrease inequality. We just need basic fairness in US. Here are the policies I would suggest:

- Capital gains should be taxes at least at same rate as income generated by labor.

- Remove incentives from economically unproductive investments such as real estate. For example, discourage home ownership unless its primary residence.

- Limit political contributions from super rich.

- Discourage high return investment vehicles that typically manipulate markets to achieve their goals by reducing risks through government safety nets.

- Limit what can be charged by insurance providers for a given quality of service. Health insurance oligarchy and their political influence is core barrier in enabling healthcare for all.

- Limit what can be charged by educational institute to students. More financial aids is not the solution, its the problem.

The goal of the governments isn't ensuring wealth equality, but ensuring level playing field. If that is ensured then, IMO, wealth inequality will naturally be limited. Government must ensure equal access to two core areas which is health and education. It must make tax system fair and avoid scenario where secretory pays higher tax rate than their super rich bosses. It needs to prevent inflation of limited resources such as real estate by strongly discouraging economically unproductive investments.

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#125

Post by douche » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 11:50 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #122

dragonwriter wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using money to vote on how to. allocate resources is plutocracy, which is pretty far from democracy.

Exactly. Democracy is designed to prevent the positive feedback loop where people who happen to have more resources can vote for things that gives them even more resources next time. If a system has this feedback loop, it's definitely not a democratic one.

Democracy's weakness is a susceptibility to allowing the people to vote themselves bread and circuses.

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#126

Post by dools » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 11:53 PM UTC

sradu wrote: post #30

Coming from a former communist country, I don't understand why smart, capable people want to give away their money to a corrupt, incompetent state to manage it for them. The US is fundamentally different than Nordic countries, where socialism appears to be working: * The Nordic countries are tiny compared to the US. * They are highly educated. * Their society is homogenous. It seems like everybody is assuming that th…

The people don't give any money to the government. The government doesn't need their money, it creates money when it spends.

The more government spends, the greater the capacity of the private sector to save (so long as the government doesn't spend beyond the productive capacity of society to create excess inflation or compete with the private sector for resources which would stifle innovation).

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#127

Post by dools » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 11:55 PM UTC

Universal income and job guarantees/full employment are PRO STARTUP but ANTI-VC.

Given PG makes all his money from the glorified HR scheme that is the VC industry, it's not surprising he is against a system that empowers people to take risks on starting companies that don't require any investment.

If people are able to start companies without risking the health of their family, or their long term prosperity, they don't need as much investment and there wouldn't be room in this world for VC funding, and thus not as much money to trickle down to the inaptly named "super angels" like PG and the YC crew.

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#128

Post by js8 » Sun, Jan 03, 2016, 11:58 PM UTC

OmarIsmail wrote: post #45

It is insane (and also very educational) that so many people are completely missing pg's point - author of this response included. I blame pg a little for using the phrase "income inequality" at all since it seems to be a trigger for many people and shuts down their critical reading and reasoning abilities. Let me try to phrase it in a clearer way. If you focus on reducing "income inequality" then you will reduce inc…

I know you mean well, but here's a counterargument. The more unequal societies tend to be less socially coherent and less interested in pushing universal whatever. So it's probably a chicken-egg problem, and the standard way to address a problem like that is to fix both ends at once, little by little.

And it's insincere to think that universal access doesn't affect the wealthiest at all. In many cases (not all, it's probably not the case of Y combinator kind of people), the wealthiest got where they are by abusing the poor.

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#129

Post by js8 » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 12:05 AM UTC

douche wrote: post #125

js8 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Democracy is designed to prevent the positive feedback loop where people who happen to have more resources can vote for things that gives them even more resources next time. If a system has this feedback loop, it's definitely not a democratic one.

Democracy's weakness is a susceptibility to allowing the people to vote themselves bread and circuses.

I don't see anything wrong with bread and circuses (although I think I prefer pork and porn ;-)).

This actually reminds me of Chomsky, who said that if people are really allowed to vote, they might decide to spend more on education and universal health care, rather than on nuclear weapons. Oh, the horrors!

Re: How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

#130

Post by mamon » Mon, Jan 04, 2016, 12:21 AM UTC

danhak wrote: post #84

zo1 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progressive taxation is a perfectly acceptable solution. Somewhere, there was some notion that said: "Already-rich people probably make money faster than the less well-off", therefore: "We should tax them more to even things out a little and have an upward push for the less well-off. And on the upside is we have a bit more funding for the state/infrastructure/services.". The problem now comes that society in general…

But taxes on inheritance and investment are totally regressive (and have become even more regressive), which undermines the benefits of a progressive system for earned income.

Inherited wealth shouldn't be taxed at all: the testator has already payed the taxes when he was earning all those money he left. Taxing it again is just plain robbery.