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

Inequality Without Class

dissentmagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#31

Post by rqtwteye »

roenxi wrote: post #2

The focus on inequality is a massive mistake. The focus needs to be on absolute living standards. I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires. In point fact, I don't see how that second world is better for anyone. Literally nobody is better off in that scenario even if inequality has dropped. There is no reason to believe…

" I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires."

Right now we live in a world with a growing number of super billionaires and we have tons of homelessness. Especially San Francisco and LA have tons of super rich people but also many homeless. So it seems to me that breeding more billionaires is not going to solve anything.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#32

Post by Manuel_D »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #29
Manuel_D wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, goods and services are not finite. This is just patently false. How many automobiles existed in 1800? How many jey liners existed in 1900? How many smartphones existed in 1950? The pool of goods grows in absolute terms. It's not just goods, services too grow in absolute terms. We invented radio in 1900 (ish) and introduced a wholly novel set of services. Before photography, in order to get one's likeness recorded…

Buddy. Are you really trying to say that there can exist infinite goods and services in a finite universe? Growing is not the same as infinite.

Sure, it's finite in that it's can't grow with literally no limit: there's a fixed amount of mass an energy in the universe.

But the above commenter states that goods and services are zero-sum, which is not true. Goods and services do grow in absolute terms. His whole thesis is that accumulation of wealth necessarily entails the depravation of others. This is not at all true: wealthy can and does grow in absolute terms.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#33

Post by Jensson »

swaginator wrote: post #25
m463 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people I think you're right, but not in that way. Tesla charged wealthy people a lot for the original tesla roadster. Then they took what they learned and charged wealthy people a lot for a better car, the original model S. Then the X. He continued reaching into the pockets of wealthy people for further updates to the model S/X, updating the motor, then motors. Now…

> He continued reaching into the pockets of wealthy people I'd argue he used subsidies from the government, both direct and indirect. Buyers get a tax credit for electric cars. SolarCity received hundreds of millions of dollars in direct grants from different state governments, I believe this all went to Tesla. Tesla's high curb weight causes more damage to roads. Tesla's lack of unionization means that it relies on…

> Buyers get a tax credit for electric cars. SolarCity received hundreds of millions of dollars in direct grants from different state governments, I believe this all went to Tesla.

Those cars wouldn't have been made or bought without those grants, the grants offset the extra cost of electric cars so they didn't put money into anyone's pockets, its just the government investing in getting electrification happen earlier.

Without them that money the profits would just have went to combustion car manufacturers instead like before.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#34

Post by Jensson »

Manuel_D wrote: post #30
cool_dude85 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true the the economy is not a zero-sum game, but it's also true that many aspects are zero-sum. Maybe some portion of Zuck's wealth does genuinely come from his innovations, and otherwise wouldn't exist. But I think it would be hard to argue that all of it is - if he had been hit by a car his first day at Harvard, maybe MySpace Tom or friendster or the Winklevoss guys would be stinking rich. So, the question is,…

If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? If so, then consumers benefit when companies do their best improve or invent new goods and services in their quest to "grab from others". Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly rel…

> Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation?

If it was state sponsored and without ads, people would get much happier since they are no longer constantly mentally assaulted by ads intended to create cravings or feeling of missing out.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#35

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #12
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get to be Musk level without reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people and taking it for yourself. All you have to do is look at the propaganda surrounding "PPP loans" versus the money given out to stretch people's paychecks during the pandemic. Most businesses weren't affected in any substantial way, but governments still gave away trillions, and the companies got to keep the money. Meanwhi…

> You don't get to be Musk level without reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people and taking it for yourself. There was no "reaching into others pocket". It's a luxury car, not a fire extinguisher being sold to a guy on fire. People reached into their own pocket and handed him cash. Voluntarily. For something they wanted . Then Elon sold off pieces of his company to people who reached into their pock…

And it created homeless people in San Francisco.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#36

Post by cool_dude85 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #30
cool_dude85 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true the the economy is not a zero-sum game, but it's also true that many aspects are zero-sum. Maybe some portion of Zuck's wealth does genuinely come from his innovations, and otherwise wouldn't exist. But I think it would be hard to argue that all of it is - if he had been hit by a car his first day at Harvard, maybe MySpace Tom or friendster or the Winklevoss guys would be stinking rich. So, the question is,…

If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? If so, then consumers benefit when companies do their best improve or invent new goods and services in their quest to "grab from others". Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly rel…

>Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation?

If we recognize that broadly the same pile of money would exist absent Zuck, and instead belong to Tom or Joe or Jane, this provides us a nice justification for not letting Zuck have quite so much money anyway. He's the guy who hit the lotto. It's not such a bad thing to say the government is going to take a lot of it and spend it on poor people.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#37

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #26
dventimi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is zero sum: there are finite goods and services in the world, and we're all competing for them. There are losers and winners. "That's just zero sum thinking" has been the smokescreen for gullible people for at least fifty years.

No, goods and services are not finite. This is just patently false. How many automobiles existed in 1800? How many jey liners existed in 1900? How many smartphones existed in 1950? The pool of goods grows in absolute terms. It's not just goods, services too grow in absolute terms. We invented radio in 1900 (ish) and introduced a wholly novel set of services. Before photography, in order to get one's likeness recorded…

If goods and services aren't finite then they must be infinite. If they're infinite then how can they be increasing?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#38

Post by Jensson »

rqtwteye wrote: post #31
roenxi wrote: post #2

The focus on inequality is a massive mistake. The focus needs to be on absolute living standards. I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires. In point fact, I don't see how that second world is better for anyone. Literally nobody is better off in that scenario even if inequality has dropped. There is no reason to believe…

" I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires." Right now we live in a world with a growing number of super billionaires and we have tons of homelessness. Especially San Francisco and LA have tons of super rich people but also many homeless. So it seems to me that breeding more billionaires is not going to solve anything.

California proves that even extreme level of tax income from taxing rich people doesn't help solve these social problems. The solution is to have a competent government, no amount of taxing or punishing the rich will help otherwise.

So voting on people just because they say they will punish the rich is a good way to not solve the problem. Vote on competent people, not people looking to assign blame.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#39

Post by slothtrop »

dventimi wrote: post #22
Manuel_D wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of zero-sum thinking - then notion that accumulation of wealth necessarily means it must have been taken from others - is extremely detrimental to society.

It is zero sum: there are finite goods and services in the world, and we're all competing for them. There are losers and winners. "That's just zero sum thinking" has been the smokescreen for gullible people for at least fifty years.

Wealth is not zero sum. If it were we'd still be quibbling over sticks in caves. It is generated.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#40

Post by slothtrop »

dventimi wrote: post #35
refurb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't get to be Musk level without reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people and taking it for yourself. There was no "reaching into others pocket". It's a luxury car, not a fire extinguisher being sold to a guy on fire. People reached into their own pocket and handed him cash. Voluntarily. For something they wanted . Then Elon sold off pieces of his company to people who reached into their pock…

And it created homeless people in San Francisco.

NIMBYism is largely responsible
Post reply on HN