Live data from Hacker News

Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

lse.ac.uk

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do we know who will come up with good ideas about what to do? Why Musk? Because he managed to earn a lot through PayPal? Does that business skill (and luck) carry over to decisions about rockets and populating Mars and developing AI? Why not give a billion to a random business owner to come up with what to do?

Why Musk what? The point is that it's not about Musk. We're talking about whether Musk "deserves" his billions in profit and the answer is it's not about Musk, and it's not about "deserve". It's about all the people who benefit because of the existence of spacex/tesla/etc, who wouldn't benefit if we refuse to pay for the work of intelligent investment (by, say, seizing profits), because that would prevent their exist…

> It's about all the people who benefit because of the existence of spacex/tesla/etc

No one benefits by the mere "existence" of SpaceX/Tesla. People benefit only from what those companies produce, and the things those companies produce only come into this world by way of people selling their labor to design, engineer, and manufacture the rockets/cars. We can go all the way down the supply chain and say that people only benefit from Tesla due to the people mining lithium in other countries. And yet the CEO of Tesla believes that the people mining his lithium deserve to have their government replaced by a US-backed coup to be more friendly to his corporation.

The point isn't that we should "seize profits". The point is that the guy at the top isn't producing as much value as he thinks he is compared to everyone below him. They are producing the real value, they should be getting the wealth. Maybe Musk still comes out of the equation the richest one of them all. Fine. But he doesn't have to come out a demi-god with more money than he could spend in 100 lifetimes. There's no reason that needs to happen.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#212
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why immediately jump to such a conclusion? The paper being discussed talks about there being a threshold under which someone might be in a poverty trap. Would simple subsidies and programs to support children's economic future suffice, such as some of the policies advocated for by American progressives? (Of course, this would require taxes or some other source of funding, but doesn't require confiscation of all inher…

You're literally threatening violence against me in this post and you're confused as to why I would respond in kind. I don't think I can help you.

Your posts in this thread have been beyond the pale. Please stop, and please don't post like this to HN in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yeah, much like the bankers of the world, the money-men always claim they are the ones "at risk" with their billions of dollars. Elon Musk is the second richest person in the world and has raised tens of billions of dollars of outside money to fund his companies. You talk like he's footing the bill; he put less than $10 million into Tesla. It was a brilliant decision, but hardly "risky". > The engineers did not. S…

It would be less embarrassing for you if you understood basic risk concepts before making snarky comments on the internet. The "bankers" you refer to, for instance, don't personally own the money they disperse but are middle-men for it and consequently don't usually own the risk. Elon, on the other hand, invested $100 million of his own money into SpaceX in the beginning of the company, way before he was a billionair…

Okay, let's take a look at risk. Elon invested $100 million dollars of his own money. If he loses it all he ends up.... just like the rest of us, with nothing. How exactly is that a huge risk? For us, that's daily life. He'd probably end up much better off in reality though. I'm sure he owns his house, for starters. So he'd invest $100 million, lose it all (was it all of his PayPal money, or just most of it? That's important because if he had even $1M left over that he intended a cushion that's not much of a risk at all really, to lose out and end up a millionaire? Not a risk.), and at the end of the day end up living in a house bigger than most of us could ever afford. He could sell that, go from "financial ruin" to being a liquid multi-millionaire. Or he could have asked one of his PayPal millionaire friends for a "small" loan of X million dollars. Or he could have done what you propose those engineers do and just get a job from somewhere else. I just don't see this massive "risk" here that justifies him now being the second most wealthy person on the planet worth more than billions of people combined.

But let's look at risk further. What about the people strapping themselves to the top of Musk's rockets and propelling themselves into outer space? They are literally risking their lives. All Musk did was put in $100 million dollars. Has anyone ever died from investing $100 million dollars? On one side you have a guy would lose a lot of money and land comfortably on his feet. On the other you have someone strapping themselves to a column of rocket fuel and blasting off to outer space, something many people have died doing. Surely if risk determines reward, and Musk is worth $150 billion dollars, these astronauts must at least be billionaires. Right?

Obviously that's a litter hyperbolic, but it's to prove a point. If we're going by risk/reward, why is financial risk the only thing considered? What about scientific risk? Musk's enterprises are premised on mountains of scientific and engineering work that came before him, work that is mostly publicly funded and for which the original pioneers (taking risks) will never be compensated. Take Tesla's much hyped "autopilot". Did Musk come up with that himself? Did Tesla engineers even come up with it? No, that research came from the government, namely DARPA through their autonomous Grand Challenges robot competitions. In 2005 during the first Grand Challenge the robots were running off the road and crashing into each other. By 2007 they were reliably navigating urban environments. This was after millions of dollars and thousands of person-hours were poured into the research. Did Musk fund that research? Did Tesla? No, you and I did as taxpayers, and we put in much more than the $100 million Musk did. The people doing that research on the ground were risking their careers and forgoing paychecks to do that work. Many of the people doing the actual coding on those robots were being paid $20k per year as graduate students. Who is now benefitting from that research? Musk. Tesla. Private interests.

Or look at the Kennedy Space Center. I just watched a SpaceX launch a rocket from there. It was the most amazing thing I've ever seen. Who built that? I mean physically, who put hammer to nail there and built that thing. It's huge. "It took 1,500 engineers to design the buildings and launch pads. The drawings alone produced by architects and designers weighed more than a hundred tons" [1]. Did Musk take the risk building that? No, the public did, and now it's there for him to use and benefit from. But the people who built that for him with public money won't be seeing a return on investment proportional to the benefit it today generates. Those benefits are privatized largely into Elon Musk's pocket.

[1] https://www.wesh.com/article/looking-back-at-the-constructio...

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#214
post #113

Please note that this study is in the context of extreme poverty in populations such as rural villages in Bangladesh. It’s an interesting study and worth reading if you’re interested in what it takes to lift these populations out of poverty. The authors propose that their extreme poverty is a meta-stable state that prevents them from accessing wealth-building opportunities. The authors show that time-limited wealth t…

I had the same reaction - Silicon Valley is not Bangladesh. I am moving my comment below to you. Hans Rosling (RIP) did a great job of defining poverty and visualizing the changing nature of poverty. His area of focus was on child mortality - so it tended to focus on the mothers since they have the greatest impact on this statistic. Later he focused on other areas. Sanitation, water, transportation etc. https://www.g…

Rosling's Factfullness is a great book as well and his 'levels' of wealth really is a great way to look at poverty and past the 1st/2nd/3rd world mindset:

https://www.gapminder.org/factfulness-book/

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of this is due to over-population? If the population of Bangladesh was 80 million instead of 160 million - giving each person access to theoretically double the amount of resources and land - would the net improvement be greater than 2x? What about 40 million - would the improvement be 4x? The solution may ultimately be a one-child policy, as demonstrated successfully by China.

China's policy wasn't all that successful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_China Population control is a very outdated idea, we have enough resources for the population, we just don't know how to distribute them using free market models.

There are missing women even in Australia and Canada - son preference is cultural.

https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/the-missing-girls-never-bo...

"mothers within some key migrant communities are recording sons at rates of 122 and 125 for every 100 daughters in later pregnancies."

The solution is for migrant-receiving countries (ie. the West) to place a limit of 49% males from any one country on any type of visa. This will dramatically boost the intake of females (for some visas and countries eg. India, the intake is 75% male) and thus their value to society in their home country.

Alternatively male migration could just be banned altogether from countries which practice systematic sex-selective abortion.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#216
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility - as well as introduces a middleman (the redistributors that steal/war/lie/oppress), corruption, politics, and extreme inefficiencies. You keep harping on the US, but it is one of - if not the most - upwardly mobile societies in history. One of my favorite anecdotes is how the 'unclassy american tourist' is a product of us being the first society to affo…

> In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility Much of Western-Europe show you otherwise, I'm not sure how you could have missed that?

No it doesn't. It validates exactly what I said. Not sure how you could have missed that.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#217
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility Much of Western-Europe show you otherwise, I'm not sure how you could have missed that?

No it doesn't. It validates exactly what I said. Not sure how you could have missed that.

I have certainly missed how for example Scandinavian countries fits with this:

> In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility - as well as introduces a middleman (the redistributors that steal/war/lie/oppress), corruption, politics, and extreme inefficiencies.

Care to explain? Or are you just being childishly contrarian which your last sentence seem to suggest?

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hierarchy is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. We can reduce levels of inequality without producing the negative outcomes you fear. I’m not sure whether this applies to you (I’m not implying that it does), but I continually find it interesting to hear Americans expressing the fear that acting to reduce inequality will somehow limit social mobility, as if they don’t realize that much of the developed world has greater…

In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility - as well as introduces a middleman (the redistributors that steal/war/lie/oppress), corruption, politics, and extreme inefficiencies. You keep harping on the US, but it is one of - if not the most - upwardly mobile societies in history. One of my favorite anecdotes is how the 'unclassy american tourist' is a product of us being the first society to affo…

> In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility

Please enumerate these instances and support the claim that in each of them mobility is reduced due to redistribution.

Without that, this sounds like subjective impression shaped by ideological preference being presented as if it were evidence for the ideological preference that produced it.

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be less embarrassing for you if you understood basic risk concepts before making snarky comments on the internet. The "bankers" you refer to, for instance, don't personally own the money they disperse but are middle-men for it and consequently don't usually own the risk. Elon, on the other hand, invested $100 million of his own money into SpaceX in the beginning of the company, way before he was a billionair…

Okay, let's take a look at risk. Elon invested $100 million dollars of his own money. If he loses it all he ends up.... just like the rest of us, with nothing. How exactly is that a huge risk? For us, that's daily life. He'd probably end up much better off in reality though. I'm sure he owns his house, for starters. So he'd invest $100 million, lose it all (was it all of his PayPal money, or just most of it? That's i…

The first part of your rant makes it clear you are confused of the topic at hand.

The second part does follow some sense - but then, how many engineers did it take to build the US road system? Why aren’t you screaming at car companies, logistics companies, taxi drivers or all other appropriate parties for taking advantage of infra built with public money?

Frankly, its fairly obvious you have a massive distaste for Musk, which is fine - I or nobody else should dictate your opinion on him. What I’m extremely tired of is this new ”social democratism movement” which is some very thinly veiled weird combination of utopian socialism and at times vitriolic hatred against the entrepreneurial populace.

Yes, there are bad actors in the current system. But what is it exactly you are advocating as the alternate system?

Re: Evidence on Poverty Traps from Rural Bangladesh [pdf]

#220

These conclusions apply to the third world, not the rest of us. Here in Europe for example, anyone can study and become an entrepreneur (I did it, with pretty much 0 wealth in the family).

>These conclusions apply to the third world, not the rest of us. Here in Europe for example

Oh ok because the United States is the richest third world country. Makes sense!

Post reply on HN