My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay • Hacker News Board

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#91

Post by k__ » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #74

tomp wrote: post #10

PG's simplified essay seems like attack on a strawman; he's mainly arguing that inequality is good, but then mostly everybody agrees with that. The issue people see (and PG conveniently ignores) is increasing inequality - not locally increasing (i.e. an enterpreneur becoming rich because of a successful business idea), but globally increasing inequality, which happens because of rent-seeking, tax avoidance, buying po…

I say this over and over again in all my comments on the subject, but wealth passed on through inheritance has fallen a lot. I don't know why its always assumed to be true that all this wealth that's driving inequality is inherited. It's not true. > Over the past 30 years, the origin of the wealth of the richest people in the United States has shifted away from old, inherited money. Our new metric, the self-made scor…

The richest people in Germany are part of families who inherited the money over generations.

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#92

Post by chimeracoder » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #59

chimeracoder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> globally increasing inequality At a global level, inequality has not been increasing. Globalization has been a huge win for developing nations in this regard (and the people who have paid the price are low-wage workers in developed nations like the US). This is not to say that we have to conclude that globalization has been a good thing overall for developing nations - there are lots of problems it has caused for t…

The global decrease in inequality is barely there, and some argue is an illusion due to the wealthiest individuals being adept at hiding their wealth. What is there is only due to India and China starting to have something resembling a middle class (but even so their standard of living would be unacceptable from someone who grew up in the US.) In the rest of the developed world (US, Europe, Japan, etc.) average wages…

> What is there is only due to India and China starting to have something resembling a middle class (but even so their standard of living would be unacceptable from someone who grew up in the US.)

I don't understand what you mean when you say it's "only" due to India and China starting to have a middle class. That is literally the definition of decreasing inequality globally: people who were previously below middle class have increased their standing.

> (but even so their standard of living would be unacceptable from someone who grew up in the US.)

As someone who actually has a very real sense of what middle-class standard-of-living in India actually is, I'd contest this claim.

But even if we ignore that, the fact that a developed country's standard of living is still below the US's standard of living doesn't contradict the statement that the inequality has decreased, because the difference between the two is much smaller than it was 50 years ago.

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#93

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

retube wrote: post #16

> Today, the top 1% control fully half of the planet's wealth This is a meaningless statistic given negative wealth is possible (indeed common). By this simple measure a recent MBA graduate of Harvard with 200k debt and no assets is poorer than a Mumbai slum dweller with 2 rupees in his pocket. I would argue that's not a fair reflection of the actual comparative wealth of the two individuals. A potentially better mea…

> I would argue that's not a fair reflection of the actual comparative wealth of the two individuals.

Why not?

Perhaps you believe this, because the Harvard MBA has greater prospects for a high-paying job, or maybe they have a family who will support them until they get a job.

But those pools of wealth are already be measured where they are--the high-paying job is with a company, and that company represents wealth that is controlled by its shareholders, partners, owners, etc. That wealth is accounted for in the measurement. Same with whatever wealth is held by the MBA's family.

Edit: In any case, it's clear where to sort a person with $200k in debt, no matter their future job prospects. They're not in the 1%.

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#94

Post by serge2k » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

> We tried it. It didn't work. No reasonable person disputes this.

I'd dispute that it was really tried, but I still don't think it would ever really work.

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#95

Post by skwirl » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #91

bko wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this over and over again in all my comments on the subject, but wealth passed on through inheritance has fallen a lot. I don't know why its always assumed to be true that all this wealth that's driving inequality is inherited. It's not true. > Over the past 30 years, the origin of the wealth of the richest people in the United States has shifted away from old, inherited money. Our new metric, the self-made scor…

The richest people in Germany are part of families who inherited the money over generations.

Perhaps that points to a problem with Germany's climate for entrepreneurship.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21587209-vigorous-sta...

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#96

Post by bko » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #80

bko wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this over and over again in all my comments on the subject, but wealth passed on through inheritance has fallen a lot. I don't know why its always assumed to be true that all this wealth that's driving inequality is inherited. It's not true. > Over the past 30 years, the origin of the wealth of the richest people in the United States has shifted away from old, inherited money. Our new metric, the self-made scor…

There's inheritance and there's inheritance. I suspect most rich people don't actually inherit money/wealth (in the legal sense). Instead, they set up trust funds for the benefit of their families/children, and so protect the assets and avoid taxes at the same time. Also, with the sheer number of tax havens and offshore secret bank accounts available nowadays, I'm very sceptical that the official statistics are able…

Perhaps there are wealthy people that, through hidden inheritance, should be on the list. But what this article looks at is the Forbes 400 richest. Unless there are some Vanderbilts hiding somewhere with billions in offshore accounts, then I would say that inheritance is not driving inequality as much as you think.

Also, you have to consider that inheritance is often passed on is often wasted in a few generations.

> Indeed, research shows that family money rarely survives the transfer for long, with 70 percent evaporated by the end of the second generation. By the end of the third? Ninety percent

[0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873246624045783346...

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#97

Post by xbejdjched » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

cmdkeen wrote: post #71

xbejdjched wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth keeping in mind that we do live in the propaganda bubble of the Soviet Union's arch nemesis. For their KGB, we had our J. Edgar Hoover. For their political purges, we had our House Committee on Unamerican Activities. For their later economic struggles, we had our great depression.

We never had several deliberately inflicted famines killing millions of people. In every single example you listed Communist countries were demonstrably worse. Humanity is capable of some pretty awful things under any system of government - Communism, or perhaps the way it comes about, has consistently demonstrated that itself better at enabling our worst impulses compared to democratic capitalism. That people, inclu…

But you're missing the point of what I'm saying:

I suggest taking the notion that communism is always bad with a grain of salt, given that our nation has been propagandized to despise communism much as the Soviets were propagandized to hate capitalism.

The Soviet Union went from a third world country of farmer peasants to becoming the world's first spacefaring civilization in only 40 years. Considering where they started, I believe that is quite impressive.

During the cold war, each side's media focused exclusively on the other's shortcomings, turning molehills into mountains, so to speak. To not acknowledge the reality distortion field around reporting of the era is an assault against the historical record.

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#98

Post by mattrepl » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

jseliger wrote: post #32

tomp wrote: post #10

PG's simplified essay seems like attack on a strawman; he's mainly arguing that inequality is good, but then mostly everybody agrees with that. The issue people see (and PG conveniently ignores) is increasing inequality - not locally increasing (i.e. an enterpreneur becoming rich because of a successful business idea), but globally increasing inequality, which happens because of rent-seeking, tax avoidance, buying po…

Your statement here: "he's mainly arguing that inequality is good" is contradicted by the second paragraph of even his simplified version: But economic inequality per se is not bad. It has multiple causes. Many are bad, but some are good. His main point isn't that economic inequality is good, and he says as much.

He states some causes are good and some are bad.

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#99

Post by jtome » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

jernfrost wrote: post #83

Great reply, although I disagree with the typical simplified assertions that the Soviet System didn't work. Without doubt the system had major flaws. But it is perhaps much more shocking that the system worked as well as it did given so many obvious problems with it. Taking a primitive peasant society and turning it into a space traveling civilisation was quite astonishing. One has to also keep in mind that for decad…

>Still both the Soviet Union and China have turned into far more humane societies during socialism than they were at any earlier times

What do you mean be this? Surely modern != humane

Re: My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

#100

Post by jhh » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

What is the top 1 percent's share of the world's consumption? Wouldn't this be a more useful metric than looking at wealth or income distribution?

Consider the following scenario: In a (conventional) socialist society the state controls an overwhelming majority of wealth. However, this would be justified by a (hypothetical) proponent of socialism by referring to consumption products being provided by this capital. Therefore, it seems the same measure should be taken with regards to market economies.