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

Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

journals.aom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 261 posts

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#101

Post by lbriner »

mrkentutbabi wrote: post #66

Is wealth inequality necessarily bad? Genuine question here.

I assume you are implying that wealth inequality is a motivator that makes people work harder and aim higher.

As with everything else in the universe, it works for some, it doesn't work for others and there are plenty who have almost literally no opportunities for whatever reason.

In western nations we think that most people have basically the same opportunities but if you are from a low-income family, you are likely to have more issues with your family, potentially more emotional and financial dependents. If you have been knocked back too many times, you can lose confidence and not have anyone to encourage you.

I guess in moderation, wage differences can motivate but at the point someone drops too low, they easily get caught in a cycle and then it becomes societies problem.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#102

Post by goodlinks »

mrkentutbabi wrote: post #66

Is wealth inequality necessarily bad? Genuine question here.

if there was a lottery defined 99% of your life outcomes at birth would that be a bad thing?

if it was possible for an accumulation of wealth within one group to essentially divide humanity in different groups that could never be changed despite skill level compitance or morals of the individuals in each group would that be bad? so someone whose great great granddaddy did something now has power for no reason. and their line of decendands wont be able to spend money as fast as they accumulate it - without even understanding how or why.

wealth accumulation and private serveices (like education and healthcare) kind of make this an inevitability imho.

AFAIK its not one person being paid more than another thats the issue.. its those that are paid because they were born with money and add nothing to society that i think bothers people.

EDIT: a good book -The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists- for considering capitlism and the accumulation of wealth (also shock how relevant it is still 120 years later): https://freeclassicebooks.com/Robert%20Tressell/The%20Ragged...

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#103

Post by hypersoar »

vlunkr wrote: post #81

For the political experts out there, what would happen if we stopped allowing lobbying? That seems to me like the most obvious source of corruption. Edit: ok, I should have worded better. What if we stopped allowing corporate lobbying through donations to elected officials? I understand there would be loopholes to close, but isn't this the obvious source of government corruption?

The broad concept of "lobbying" is really just people bringing their concerns to elected representatives. I don't really see how you would ban it entirely.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#104

Post by holbrad »

mrkentutbabi wrote: post #66

Is wealth inequality necessarily bad? Genuine question here.

A common argument is that relative levels of wealth don't matter too much. Does it really matter if there is some Billionaire's if the average person is doing well for themselves ?

It's the average persons absolute amount of wealth going up that matters.

I think the real question is: Is an uneven distribution necessary to drive absolute levels of wealth up more quickly ? What level of wealth inequality produces the most growth ?

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#105

Post by justinmchase »

aww_dang wrote: post #93
vlunkr wrote: post #81

For the political experts out there, what would happen if we stopped allowing lobbying? That seems to me like the most obvious source of corruption. Edit: ok, I should have worded better. What if we stopped allowing corporate lobbying through donations to elected officials? I understand there would be loopholes to close, but isn't this the obvious source of government corruption?

The incentive for lobbying would remain and turn more deeply to black markets. To end lobbying you'd need to remove the incentive for lobbyists to seduce lawmakers. Instead, remove the power of lawmakers or reduce/decentralize the power as much as pragmatically possible.

In Plato's ideal republic the lawmakers, or protectors, were instead removed from society living in a parallel society dedicated to service. Therefore they would be incorruptable, or difficult to corrupt.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#107

Post by Gunax »

vlunkr wrote: post #81

For the political experts out there, what would happen if we stopped allowing lobbying? That seems to me like the most obvious source of corruption. Edit: ok, I should have worded better. What if we stopped allowing corporate lobbying through donations to elected officials? I understand there would be loopholes to close, but isn't this the obvious source of government corruption?

And how would one stop that, or would you really want to?

I consider campaigning to one's representatives a cornerstone of democracy and political activism. To get rid if that because groups we don't like also use it is anti-democratic.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#108

Post by refurb »

vlunkr wrote: post #81

For the political experts out there, what would happen if we stopped allowing lobbying? That seems to me like the most obvious source of corruption. Edit: ok, I should have worded better. What if we stopped allowing corporate lobbying through donations to elected officials? I understand there would be loopholes to close, but isn't this the obvious source of government corruption?

Lobbying is just communicating your desires to your elected representative.

If we stopped it, we stop democracy?

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#109

Post by jevoten »

dbsmith83 wrote: post #86
Zenst wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes way more complex as a recent article outlined regarding a very relevant story. "$35BN Match Group file multiple lawsuits against muzmatch following repeated failed acquisition offers" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29860034

shrug I'm sure you can find much more examples of companies not behaving this way. This kind of behavior can be lessened with laws and penalties against frivolous lawsuits. It's hardly an indictment against the system itself.

On the other hand there are countless examples of similar strong-arming tactics that never see daylight. For example, negotiations with supermarket chains to get a spot on the shelf (and which spot), what the chain's cut will be, or which tools a car repair shop is allowed to use to be "licensed" to work on some brand (hint: it's the brand's own overpriced line of tools).

"Lets provide the better product/service at a lower price" is, by far, not the most common business tactic.

Post reply on HN