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

41–50 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#41

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #32
cool_dude85 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

The above commenter is me and I say that goods and services are finite because they are. So what if there were fewer in the past and there will be more in the future. We live in the present and in the present goods and services are provided by people through labor which is finite at any given time. We're all competing: for housing, healthcare, and the political power to determine our material conditions. If wealth doesn't allow you to outcompete other people for those things then what the hell is it for?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#42

Post by jayd16 »

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…

We have 1x Musk and still have homelessness. Why would 9 more help exactly?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#43

Post by [deleted] »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #36
Manuel_D wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

[deleted]

Re: Inequality Without Class

#44

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #41
Manuel_D wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

The above commenter is me and I say that goods and services are finite because they are. So what if there were fewer in the past and there will be more in the future. We live in the present and in the present goods and services are provided by people through labor which is finite at any given time. We're all competing: for housing, healthcare, and the political power to determine our material conditions. If wealth do…

> The above commenter is me and I say that goods and services are finite because they are. So what if there were fewer in the past and there will be more in the future.

What you're describing here is literally the opposite of zero-sum. The total set of goods and services in increasing. It directly contradicts your claim that the accumulation of wealth necessitates the deprivation of others.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#45

Post by specialist »

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…

What is the relationship between governance and inequity?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#46

Post by nox101 »

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.

More likely things like fentanyl are to blame for homelessness. It’s extremely addictive and cheap to make

Re: Inequality Without Class

#48

Post by llamaimperative »

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…

There literally is reason to believe that. “Logical” by your assessment or not, inequality is a far stronger contributor to unhappiness than absolute wealth.

The premise of your argument is absurd. If we were to accept it, we’d have to expect that people in the 1100s were all just depressed/angry/anxious — including the wealthiest, most powerful people on the planet — to a degree that is literally unfathomable to a modern first-worlder.

Brains just don’t work that way not because other people are fickle emotional messes, but because a brain like that wouldn’t work.

(Yes, obviously poverty sucks and higher standards of living are preferable to lower, just to head off some strawmen)

Re: Inequality Without Class

#49

Post by Manuel_D »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #36
Manuel_D wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

No, I'm not seeing the logic behind this at all. If someone invented assembly line production before Ford, that person would accumulate an immense fortune. But said hypothetical person didn't invent assembly line production. Ford did.

The lotto ticket is a great analogy. If other people picked the winning numbers, they'd have won a lot of money too! But they didn't. Does that create an obligation for the real winner to compensate all the hypothetical would-be winners?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#50

Post by specialist »

Jensson wrote: post #33
swaginator wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 earlie…

Sure. But acknowledging the source of the investments would be swell. And it's a bit cheeky to be vehemently against govt and taxes after being one of the largest beneficiaries of said govt.
Post reply on HN