61–70 of 628 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fair statement. Can HN provide a logical response instead of downvotes?
Because "produce more" and "have more" aren't actually related. Have you produced more if you're born rich? Does Jeff Bezos actually produce billions? It's a statement that doesn't actually represent reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level OF EFFORT. Even a wealthy person can lose their money if they don't make an effort investing it properly. How do people build wealth from the ground up? They work hard each and every day and that effort COMPOUNDS. They get smarter, more opportunities present themselves…
But "investing" is just rent-seeking from other people doing actual work. Literally it's taking a portion of the profits of someone else's labour in exchange for access to your capital.
If you drive a truck for ten years to save up enough to buy your own truck, and then drive it eight hours a day while you pay two other people to drive it the other sixteen hours a day, you're making more money than them for the same work. But it's only because you saved instead of spent for ten years, and the only reason they have a job driving a truck is that you have a truck. They have neither a truck nor the money to buy one, so without you they're standing on a street corner with no job.
Of course it is...it's a natural consequence of compound interest. One's ability to accumulate additional wealth scales exponentially with their level of existing wealth.
You're assuming capitalism, which isn't listed as an assumption with the question posed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because capitalism and free enterprise are predicated on fair competition and equal access. In theory, the best and most innovative ideas thrive and lead to economic growth. Extreme inequality undermines this by allowing those who already have significant wealth to put their finger on the scales (lobbying, anticompetitive practices, etc.)
The thing that always irks me about this is that we keep talking about the individuals even though that's not the real issue. Sure, Jeff Bezos has a lot of wealth, but really what he has is a lot of shares of Amazon. It's Amazon that really has the money. Even if Bezos is the CEO, he has a duty to the other shareholders to act in their interests. He can't just donate all the company's assets to charity even if he wan…
Bezos may not be able to donate Amazon’s assets to charity, but he can donate his assets - in this case his shares of Amazon.
He can equally well sell his Amazon shares and buy something else with the proceeds, so the wealth that is attributed to him really his his.
Of course there is a point at which Amazon’s value might be impacted if Bezos sold his shares, but he could probably realize well over 50% of his holdings before that became an issue.
Equality is unavoidable as long as people are allowed to compete for stuff.
If people are allowed to compete for property then those that are better at competing will have more property.
It might be possible to have property equality when people have access to same things but compete for different things, for example status, choice of partners, etc.
And the most important point people seem to forget:
Inequality does not mean we need to have people who can't satisfy their most basic things. It is possible for people to be allowed to compete for wealth and at the same time ensure those that don't want or can't compete have their basic needs like food, shelter and medical care satisfied.
The authors can fit data better by adding parameters, which is no surprise. But these models omit an important feature of the real world: growth. "Yard sale" models are zero-sum.
[1] http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Economics...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more reflecting the general consensus. That's communism, which is generally seen as a failed economic system, and difficult to practically enforce. Although maybe that all changes in a post-scarcity economy, like is Star Trek technically communist? Should the goal actually be GINI-0?
Star Trek isn't communist; capitalism and communism are both approaches to the allocation of resources. Neither really applies in a post-scarcity society.
They're entirely egalitarian either, perhaps that's why you say they're not communist, see for example the luxuries that a captain has that crew do not and the preferences (larger quarters) that accrue with seniority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't the coefficient be zero? I'm curious what your reasoning is.
I'm more reflecting the general consensus. That's communism, which is generally seen as a failed economic system, and difficult to practically enforce. Although maybe that all changes in a post-scarcity economy, like is Star Trek technically communist? Should the goal actually be GINI-0?
However, without getting bogged down in the details of the implementation, I think GINI-1 would result in a society where no one has incentive to work because one person gets all of the benefit of that work.
Whereas with GINI-0 everyone benefits from their work, and anyone who produces more value than most others is still incentivized to work because they will still see a marginal gain in wealth, albeit reduced from what they would normally earn in a higher inequality system since it is somehow redistributed equally to everyone.
Perhaps the goal is not GINI-0 but as close as possible to it.
Absolutely - and that's a good thing. Those who produce more should earn more as well.