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

Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 230 posts

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#221

Post by yucky »

l3uwin wrote: post #220
yucky wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think reaaaaaaaal hard about why you filled in your own blanks and called them lazy..

If you're going to defend calling an entire African country lazy, maybe this is for you https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.h... https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotyp...

Could you quote where I called them lazy? Or perhaps you're responding to the wrong user?

The alternative is that you're being intentionally dishonest, I would hope that's not the case though.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#222

Post by brutusborn »

imtringued wrote: post #208
brutusborn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent seeking may be zero sum, but the economy as a whole not. If we banned rent seeking the economy would likely grow faster. You could argue that's changing the game, but the economy is a weird one in that changing the game is part of the game.

Banning rent seeking doesn't work. Christianity tried banning interest and it just causes non Christians to offer lending services which then results in xenophobia. Interest payments partially derive from the liquidity services provided by market participants (think long opening hours and storing products ahead of time). Money effectively becomes a public institution where people voluntarily give it value in the form…

So rent seeking doesn't work because a long time ago one subpopulation banned it and it didn't work for the population as a whole? That's ridiculous. It's like saying prohibition in the US didn't work because booze was legal in Canada.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#223

Post by leshow »

naikrovek wrote: post #197
leshow wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sympathize with the sentiment, although I don't blame the issues on a dearth of altruism. If you grew up in the 1400's could you expect widespread equality during feudalism? It doesn't matter how magnanimous a king was, inequality was built into society. The question then becomes, IMO, what sort of economic organization would help solve these issues?

there is no economic system which treats people equally, and there never will be, because it is the creation and use of money which turns good people into bad people. money is Aladdin's Lamp; money grants wishes, and no matter who you are or what you have, you will always want more . there will always be a non-zero number of people who want "more" enough that they feel it is ok that others suffer so that it be obtain…

Money has existed for a long time, but only recently has the pursuit of profit become preeminent. I'm of the opinion that democracy and universal suffrage creates as equal a system as we can hope for, my issue isn't with money or economies per say... the subject I was trying to broach was democratic ownership.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#224

Post by Seb-C »

adam_arthur wrote: post #94

It’s simple. Countries that adopt competitive and capitalist oriented markets do well, those that don’t, don’t. Populist driven economic policies have failed over and over again. How many centuries of history is necessary for people to understand this?

Fundamentally, the more value you create, the richer you become. If you take two equal cave-men, and one builds a house and start farming stuff and the other not, then suddenly you have one rich that possesses all the value in the world, and one poor guy that has nothing.

There is nothing wrong in this dis-balance, it's just natural. The rich one did not steal from the other and does not owe him anything.

So the right question is "What prevents the other caveman from creating value?". Historically it was access to resources, how the climate favored access to food, etc...

But now that science and technologies can do wonders, we are indeed often left with political barriers to the development.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#225

Post by l3uwin »

yucky wrote: post #221
l3uwin wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to defend calling an entire African country lazy, maybe this is for you https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.h... https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotyp...

Could you quote where I called them lazy? Or perhaps you're responding to the wrong user? The alternative is that you're being intentionally dishonest, I would hope that's not the case though.

seems im responding to the wrong user, my apologies.

the person who made the claim was thorougly roasted and edited their comment but you can ctrl + f 'ghana' and see the downstream context.

> Yes, similar to the assumption that the differences between North and South Korea can't be put down to "lazy people" and "hard working people" being magically seperated on opposite sides of the border.

> Your implication is that Ghana failed where South Korea succeeded because they didn't work hard enough.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#226

Post by naikrovek »

leshow wrote: post #223
naikrovek wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no economic system which treats people equally, and there never will be, because it is the creation and use of money which turns good people into bad people. money is Aladdin's Lamp; money grants wishes, and no matter who you are or what you have, you will always want more . there will always be a non-zero number of people who want "more" enough that they feel it is ok that others suffer so that it be obtain…

Money has existed for a long time, but only recently has the pursuit of profit become preeminent. I'm of the opinion that democracy and universal suffrage creates as equal a system as we can hope for, my issue isn't with money or economies per say... the subject I was trying to broach was democratic ownership.

to be clear, I don't care if people are allowed to get rich. that's fine. If you're skilled enough to get rich, then you should be allowed to get rich. I hope that rich people are altruistic, and some are, but most aren't. whatever.

what really, really rubs me raw is that we let people fall out of society and into nothingness. livable minimum wage should not even be a discussion. Free physical and mental healthcare should not even be a discussion. affordable housing should not even be a discussion - these are all table stakes for a society that is worthy of existing. No one should be left behind. be as rich as you like; just don't be so greedy that you take someone's ability to live freely away from them because you don't pay them enough, and now they can't afford rent or gas for their car.

I guess that makes me either a socialist or someone in favor of very strong welfare policies, but whatever you want to call it, it's the bare minimum that a society should offer its citizens, imo. the whole point of a society or of a nation is that the citizens are taken care of, be it from foreign invader, or domestic threat. those kinds of things are why the collective resources of the people are pooled. that's the whole reason. i see no difference between people dying of poverty and people dying because of bombardment.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#227

Post by JoeAltmaier »

dusted wrote: post #199
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we find the magic wand to do that, I'm not sure I'd wave it but ok. 'Fair wages' is tossed around a lot. I'm not some money-grubbing oligarch but imagining you can control wages has a pretty bad track record. It's going to take more than talking about the end game, to come up with a game plan. Anyway, I don't think I'm being any more emotional that the knock-off remark I responded to. If I came off as reactionar…

I'm curious what it is in my comment that you found to be "knock-off" or distasteful? I didn't defend the status-quo, I didn't suggest any alternative, I didn't say it was a good or a bad thing, only that it is how things are right now. All I said was, that what makes rich countries rich, is that they have more money than poor countries..

...and its because they give all the shitwork to 'poor countries'. (Work which, of course, we used to do here in this rich country).

It's that blanket assertion that everything is just this one way. That's easy to say. Nothing was offered to support it. The reader is assumed to agree because it's obvious.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#228

Post by dusted »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #227
dusted wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what it is in my comment that you found to be "knock-off" or distasteful? I didn't defend the status-quo, I didn't suggest any alternative, I didn't say it was a good or a bad thing, only that it is how things are right now. All I said was, that what makes rich countries rich, is that they have more money than poor countries..

...and its because they give all the shitwork to 'poor countries'. (Work which, of course, we used to do here in this rich country). It's that blanket assertion that everything is just this one way. That's easy to say. Nothing was offered to support it. The reader is assumed to agree because it's obvious.

I'm not arguing that it is, I'm simply stating that it is my understanding that that is how it is.

Is it not the case? That 'poor countries' are getting all the shitwork now ?

I sense that you disagree with my understanding of how things are, but you are offering nothing of your own view at all..

So, if things are not how I think they are, then please, tell me how you think they are ?

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#229

Post by JoeAltmaier »

dusted wrote: post #228
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and its because they give all the shitwork to 'poor countries'. (Work which, of course, we used to do here in this rich country). It's that blanket assertion that everything is just this one way. That's easy to say. Nothing was offered to support it. The reader is assumed to agree because it's obvious.

I'm not arguing that it is, I'm simply stating that it is my understanding that that is how it is. Is it not the case? That 'poor countries' are getting all the shitwork now ? I sense that you disagree with my understanding of how things are, but you are offering nothing of your own view at all.. So, if things are not how I think they are, then please, tell me how you think they are ?

Nah, I'm not going to do any more work to refute an off-the-cuff remark, than the remark took to make.

Re: Why Isn’t the Whole World Rich?

#230

Post by dusted »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #229
dusted wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing that it is, I'm simply stating that it is my understanding that that is how it is. Is it not the case? That 'poor countries' are getting all the shitwork now ? I sense that you disagree with my understanding of how things are, but you are offering nothing of your own view at all.. So, if things are not how I think they are, then please, tell me how you think they are ?

Nah, I'm not going to do any more work to refute an off-the-cuff remark, than the remark took to make.

I'm sure the maker of a remark holds fairly exclusive privilege to declare it off the cuff or not, mostly that is done as an excuse for when the remark was later refuted or otherwise got them into trouble..

My remark was well-prepared, you may not agree with it, however, I am the one who made it, and I did not make it off the cuff..

Did you mean that you made an off the cuff remark, and wanted to refute your own remark?

Post reply on HN