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

My simplified response to Paul Graham's simplified essay

blog.rongarret.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 211 posts

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

#191

Post by ggreer »

grecy wrote: post #136
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…

To extend on this with an anecdote; A buddy of mine lived and worked in Cuba for many years, and has very positive things to say about life there. He lives in Canada, and enjoys life in Cuba as much as he does in Canada, which I think says a lot. Every single person has healthcare, food and shelter. Every single person has a job, and their kids go to a good school. Because everyone is paid the same, work is not the f…

Your buddy is whitewashing to an absurd extent. The Cuban government regularly engages in censorship[1], religious persecution, stifling of free speech, indoctrination of children, and imprisonment of political dissidents.[2] It's getting better, but it's still really bad.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Contempor...

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

#192

Post by adevine »

zepto wrote: post #155
adevine wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense to me. At the end of the day, all stock must be owned by actual people, even if it is through a network of other corporate entities and trusts. A corporation may transcend the death of its owners, but if I own 50% of a corporation, and I gift my shares to an heir (or even let them purchase it at a discount), the government will still take their cut.

Sure - let's assume for a moment that inheritance tax does work to distribute ownership. That simply removes 'ownership' as the instrument for control, positions within the corporate structure would then become the 'title' to the assets, and these would be passed down through nepotism and clan structures as I mentioned.

While I'm not a lawyer, it doesn't really work this way, at least in the US. The law defines "ownership" pretty clearly based on who has real control over an asset. You can't really pretend someone else is the owner if you have the real control over the disposition of an asset.

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

#193

Post by adevine »

sjg007 wrote: post #128
adevine wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense to me. At the end of the day, all stock must be owned by actual people, even if it is through a network of other corporate entities and trusts. A corporation may transcend the death of its owners, but if I own 50% of a corporation, and I gift my shares to an heir (or even let them purchase it at a discount), the government will still take their cut.

You have them owned by a trust and you replace trustees when they die.

It doesn't really work that way, at least in the US. While there are different ways to use trusts to minimize estate taxes, it's not like you can put all your assets in a trust, maintain control, and then when you die someone else is named the trustee and they get off tax-free.

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

#194

Post by zepto »

adevine wrote: post #192
zepto wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure - let's assume for a moment that inheritance tax does work to distribute ownership. That simply removes 'ownership' as the instrument for control, positions within the corporate structure would then become the 'title' to the assets, and these would be passed down through nepotism and clan structures as I mentioned.

While I'm not a lawyer, it doesn't really work this way, at least in the US. The law defines "ownership" pretty clearly based on who has real control over an asset. You can't really pretend someone else is the owner if you have the real control over the disposition of an asset.

Who says the titles wouldn't provide real control?

Do Larry And Sergei legally own all of Alphabet given that they have full control?

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

#195

Post by the-dude »

cmdkeen wrote: post #156
the-dude wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about your native population? And your police force is still shooting former slaves on a daily basis.

I'm British - the police over here killed 3 people last year, and that was an above average year. The USA is not the entire set of Western Liberal Democracies.

I stand corrected, sorry.

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

#196

Post by xlm1717 »

pc86 wrote: post #189
ThomPete wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not taxing them again (since they are dead) you are taxing their children/relatives who get the money without having done anything for it. Plus if you are rich enough a lot of those money were not taxed like a normally family but most probably through things like capital gains or just appreciation (real estate) which rarely is a product of your specific work but rather societies work to turn an area into some…

> you are taxing their children/relatives who get the money without having done anything for it. Is your argument anything other than "they got money and I want the government to take some!" > if you are rich enough a lot of those money were not taxed like a normally family but most probably through things like capital gains "We probably didn't get it right the first time around so we'll take another whack at it afte…

>Is your argument anything other than "they got money and I want the government to take some!"

I wonder what the reaction would be if the government one day decided that to make higher education affordable for everyone, they would tax the money that parents who can afford it give their children to go to college.

The children didn't do anything except have parents who can pay for their college. Why shouldn't we take that money and give it to someone who can't afford college?

If you eliminate the education tax credit college students get, everyone would be up in arms.

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

#197

Post by tomp »

Rusky wrote: post #181
tomp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm... can you find anyone who honestly disagrees with "inequality is good", and therefore claims that "inequality is bad" and so "equality is good" (and also proposes a reasonable and practical implemntation)? Even communists only preached, not practiced, this.

Depending on what you mean by "inequality" and "equality," loads of people. While I doubt you could find many people who want some artificial straw-man world where everyone is completely and totally equal in every way, you should have no trouble at all finding people upset about the vast difference in quality of life between the rich and poor of humanity.

> upset about the vast difference in quality of life between the rich and poor of humanity

Absolutely; I am, for one. But that's not inequality, it's extreme inequality. Which I agree is a bad thing. But if you believe inequality is bad, then it must follow that you believe only complete equality (in the economic sense) is good. Which is so unrealistic that we can almost say it's a logical fallacy.

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

#198

Post by grecy »

ggreer wrote: post #191
grecy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To extend on this with an anecdote; A buddy of mine lived and worked in Cuba for many years, and has very positive things to say about life there. He lives in Canada, and enjoys life in Cuba as much as he does in Canada, which I think says a lot. Every single person has healthcare, food and shelter. Every single person has a job, and their kids go to a good school. Because everyone is paid the same, work is not the f…

Your buddy is whitewashing to an absurd extent. The Cuban government regularly engages in censorship[1], religious persecution, stifling of free speech, indoctrination of children, and imprisonment of political dissidents.[2] It's getting better, but it's still really bad. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Contempor...

You've just done exactly what the parent comment said happens anytime there is a discussion of the merits of the communist system:

> The problem with discussing any of this is that the anti-socialism and communism feelings run so deep that people can't have a neutral discussion of the merits and flaws of socialism and communism. Anything positive can so easily be dismissed by the utter tyranny and inhumanity practiced by Stalin.

I made it clear the Cuban system is not perfect, but that it clearly has some merits that are worth thinking about.

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

#199

Post by abandonliberty »

ggreer wrote: post #191
grecy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To extend on this with an anecdote; A buddy of mine lived and worked in Cuba for many years, and has very positive things to say about life there. He lives in Canada, and enjoys life in Cuba as much as he does in Canada, which I think says a lot. Every single person has healthcare, food and shelter. Every single person has a job, and their kids go to a good school. Because everyone is paid the same, work is not the f…

Your buddy is whitewashing to an absurd extent. The Cuban government regularly engages in censorship[1], religious persecution, stifling of free speech, indoctrination of children, and imprisonment of political dissidents.[2] It's getting better, but it's still really bad. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Contempor...

It's quite possible to go there and only see the whitewashing. I'm always curious where the reality is for a country that has so many wealthy and powerful enemies. Given all the evidence we have of agencies managing public opinion through money or speech, I'm always a bit skeptical.

One of the key critics of Cuba in our links was Reporters Without Borders. I'm actually quite surprised to find the following still visible on their own page:

"An article by John Cherian in the Indian magazine Frontline alleged that RWB "is reputed to have strong links with Western intelligence agencies" and "Cuba has accused Robert Meynard [sic] the head of the group, of having CIA links".[79]

RWB has denied that its campaigning on Cuba are related to payments it has received from anti-Castro organisations.[80] In 2004, it received $50,000 from the Miami-based exile group, the Center for a Free Cuba, which was personally signed by the US State Department's Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere, Otto Reich.[75] RWB has also received extensive funding from other institutions long critical of Fidel Castro's government, including the International Republican Institute.[81]

Journalist Salim Lamrani has accused Reporters Without Borders with making unsupported and contradictory statements regarding Internet connectivity in Cuba.[82]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Cuba

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

#200

Post by borvo »

zepto wrote: post #85
skeolawn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe he would, but all the experiments so far have failed for pretty much the same reasons and at enormous human cost. Meanwhile capitalism in whatever form it's tried has proven itself to be an incredible engine of poverty reduction and human/social progress. There's always been tension between capitalism and democracy and we may be at a point where some of the cracks are showing.

Either capitalism is a new phenomenon and we don't have enough data to know how stable it is beyond outlasting communism, or what you call 'capitalism' is anything except communism - in which case it has failed catastrophically many times throughout history. Democracy is relatively new, and has proven hard to establish in most of the world, so there isn't a lot of evidence that it's stable.

I think that's fair enough. I guess all we can say is best of what we've tried so far.
Post reply on HN