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

Is Inequality Inevitable?

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 628 posts

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#581

Post by koro9n »

vannevar wrote: post #397
SiVal wrote: post #193

There is a popular political perspective that rules on campus these days that treats wealth as something that just magically exists and is simply "redistributed" by one means or another like, say, a phase change in physics where no magnetism/charge/energy/etc. is ever created or consumed. I waited for a point in their model where people actually produced wealth and consumed it, made something or ate it, in addition t…

It's not part of the model because, if you're studying how wealth gets distributed rather than how it is produced, it doesn't matter. I'm guessing that your disquiet at this notion comes from the possibility that everyone is creating their own wealth, and to some extent that is no doubt true. But if you start with the simplifying assumption that everyone's wealth creation ability is equal, and you just look at distri…

Then when you read James Madison defined the Senate as protector of the rich, a legacy fed to our Senators since childhood, you realize wealth accumulation has nothing to do with organic economic trade, and everything to do with political power brokering.

That it’s somehow dictated by physics is another example of people with emotional minds filled by godheaded supervisors that social hierarchy is preordained, not the uglier truth: the elite and their sycophants get violent when it’s pointed out they aren’t gods owed political deference

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#582

Post by pmiller2 »

taneq wrote: post #449
tsimionescu wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is anyone entitled to own a chip fab? Why is some rich daughter entitled to own a chip fab? Because she is in the current system, while anyone else would have to work their whole lives, and convince hundreds of others to work with them, to create a chip fab, if they wanted to own one.

Ok so they do that, they organise people and get everyone working together (which, while it’s not generally acknowledged in this kind of conversation, IS work and DOES count as creating value) and by the time they’re old, they own a chip fab. That’s ok, right? It’s fair? If they build it, or pay other people to build it in a fair trade of money for services, then they own it? So if they own it, they can do what they…

If by "organize people," you mean induce people to work for them then, no, that is not work. That is using the coercive nature of capitalism (work or starve/be homeless/die) against workers.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#583

Post by pmiller2 »

ctdonath wrote: post #565
imtringued wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The profits from operating them should go to the people operating them Well, economic theory says that the profits should approach zero as more and more competitors join the market and the provided goods or services become commodities. This effectively is a redistribution mechanism. The reality is a bit uglier. By the way, prevention of wealth accumulation doesn't require repossession of existing property. A simple…

Not yours to “not allow”.

Please provide your reasoning.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#584

Post by loco5niner »

diminoten wrote: post #412
dre54673 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed an increasing trend in people using phrases such as "it is trivial", "it is obvious", "it is self evident" to defend their arguments. I have yet to encounter a case where it made their argument better. This might be off topic but it has become a pet peeve because I've even started to encounter it in real life. It is similar to starting a discussion with "if you disagree with me, you are stupid".

Would it help you to replace those phrases with, "Let's assume" because that's basically what they're saying, in a way.

I disagree. "Let's assume" leaves room for doubt, where "it is obvious" allows for none. I think most people who use these phrases are going for the latter.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#585

Post by sdfin »

pietrovismara wrote: post #471
sdfin wrote: post #334

I don't get why lately the trend it to focus in inequality instead of focusing in poverty. I mean, if the % of poverty decreases, then economy is moving in a good direction, in spite of inequality, right? Suppose you had one million, and somebody else has one thousand millions, there would be a large gap, but I wouldn't consider it as negative. If there are arguments against what I wrote I would gladly read them and…

Because both inequality and poverty matter. Solving poverty is a matter of decency for all humanity and it would greatly improve our society. Solving inequality is as important, why? Because in a society where greed and profit motive trump any other ethic, we can't have individuals as powerful as states, thanks to the wealth they accumulated, partly, stealing from states. Earning billions and finding ways to not pay…

You say that individuals with power may do bad things and states with power do good things. Yes, that can happen. But also there may be individuals with power that do very good things and states with power that do very bad things.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#586

Post by sdfin »

username90 wrote: post #506
sdfin wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Relative deprivation” is having less access to material goods and services than others in one’s social milieu. I cannot buy a yacht, while some rich guys can. Therefore I'm relatively deprived, according to that definition. That's not a problem.

The problem comes when "I cannot buy a home, since all homes are prized for people richer than me", or "I cannot see a doctor, since all doctors are prized for people richer than me".

Certainly. But that sounds more extreme than "relative deprivation", that's a real deprivation of basic needs.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#587

Post by sdfin »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #454
sdfin wrote: post #334

I don't get why lately the trend it to focus in inequality instead of focusing in poverty. I mean, if the % of poverty decreases, then economy is moving in a good direction, in spite of inequality, right? Suppose you had one million, and somebody else has one thousand millions, there would be a large gap, but I wouldn't consider it as negative. If there are arguments against what I wrote I would gladly read them and…

Inequality is bad because political power is correlated to wealth. As soon as we switch to a political system where Charles Koch has the same political power as the minimum wage janitor working in his office, I will stop fighting economic inequality.

What would be needed to achieve such a thing?

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#589

Post by sdfin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #425
defterGoose wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my comment above, but in response to this, doesn't "relative deprivation"=="inequality"?

Basically, yes. But, for a longer answer (and an entry to a vastly longer one...) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129

This "relative deprivation" concept, to me sounds like a more elegant way of speaking about "envy". "The grass is greener in our neighbor lawn". Perhaps I'm very minimalist in my needs and therefore I cannot empathize with people that feel that relative deprivation, and that's why I question it.

From the article: > Relative poverty, an important but often neglected policy target, is measured by the resources needed to maintain the social and economic lifestyle that is widely accepted by the society in which one lives,

Who is "the society"? This sounds like saying that people feel bad when others have something they don't have, even if they aren't poor. Should everyone have the same? Trying to achieve that never worked. That may work only when thanks to technological advancements we reach a post-scarcity economy, I believe.

From the article: > A large empirical evidence base for most countries suggests that low socio-economic status and resulting feelings of relative deprivation lower both objective and subjective well-being, as measured by indicators such as health and happiness.

Feeling envy lowers well-being, yes.

Re: Is Inequality Inevitable?

#590

Post by learc83 »

WalterBright wrote: post #576
learc83 wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing the 1% more heavily isn't really the same thing as eliminating the 1% though is it? And taxing wealth over a certain limit, which is what the person you were replying to is probably getting at, solves your problem taxing income preventing people from becoming wealthy in the first place.

> Taxing the 1% more heavily isn't really the same thing as eliminating the 1% though is it? Bernie Sanders has stated he wants to tax billionaires into non-billionaire status. So yes, it's about eliminating the 1%.

There are only about 600 billionaires in the US. The top 1% is over 3 million people. Also they'll still be in the top %0.01 with $999 million.

You're also making some weird assumptions that transferring money away from billionaires would just destroy that money, and that the current billionaires are using their resources in the most productive way possible. The real world isn't Atlas Shrugged.

Look up income velocity of money.

Post reply on HN