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

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#71

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #69
Manuel_D wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At one given instant sure, but the key thing is that over time the collection of goods and services grows. Adam, Bob, and Charlie are all shipwrecked on an island. They divy up the ship's goods equally. One day, Charlie decides to build some furniture. Now he has more goods than Adam and Bob. Did he deprive others, to achieve his comparatively greater wealth? If you just looked at one snapshot of time, you'd see Char…

> At one given instant sure [goods and services are finite] I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. > the key thing is that over time the collection of goods and services grows. That's cold comfort for people who never live to see a time when they can compete for those goods and services.

> I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite.

Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased. Yes, the amount of wealth at Monday, 03-Jun-24 04:12:33 UTC is going to be finite, because that's a fixed point in time. This is just a pointless tangent, because in our world time is not frozen. In our reality, where time flows, wealth is not finite and is indeed grown in absolute terms.

> That's cold comfort for people who never live to see a time when they can compete for those goods and services.

Yes, people who lived in preindustrial societies saw more or less fixed living standards for generations. But fortunately for us, we live in one of the most economically dynamic points of in all of human history [1]. Your statement does ring true for most of human history, but not in our age.

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_GDP_per_capita...

Re: Inequality Without Class

#72

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #23
dventimi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree less. Wealth depends on poverty because poverty creates wealth. You'll never get 10x Musk's without creating homeless people. We compete with each other for resources using wealth and power, which at the highest levels are the same.

No, poverty does not create wealth. The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty. This comment is prototypical of a zero-sum mindset.

> The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty.

How do you think the less-affluent countries became that way? By enriching the affluent countries, that's how.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#73

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #70
Manuel_D wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think wealth is? A big part of wealth generation is finding new technologies and applying them to build better things.

I think it's abundance in one's material conditions. That's not technology. Technology is knowledge. That's completely different.

Technology is the application of knowledge. Often to improve one's material conditions. Even an average person in this day's age has amenities that nobody, not even the wealthiest noble, could have achieved in preindustrial eras. We have air conditioning, electricity, antibiotics, vaccines, antiseptic, and near-instant communication worldwide. Our material conditions have drastically improved. Wealth is not finite, not even remotely.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#74

Post by dventimi »

brigadier132 wrote: post #24
dventimi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree less. Wealth depends on poverty because poverty creates wealth. You'll never get 10x Musk's without creating homeless people. We compete with each other for resources using wealth and power, which at the highest levels are the same.

> Wealth depends on poverty because poverty creates wealth This is circular reasoning and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics and what wealth even is. > You'll never get 10x Musk's without creating homeless people This is stated without evidence. > We compete with each other for resources using wealth and power The classic 0 sum theory of economics. It's a good thing economics isn't actually…

> This is circular reasoning

It's not circular reasoning because it's not even reasoning. It's a claim. I have not attempted to justify it. I could, and I may, but I haven't tried to (yet).

> This is stated without evidence.

Yes. It's another claim. I'd be happy to explain it if you like.

> It's a good thing economics isn't actually 0 sum because with more than 10x population growth since the 1700s we'd be fighting over loaves of bread.

People still find it difficult to obtain even basic needs like food, even in what another commenter referred to as one of the "affluent" countries.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...

Re: Inequality Without Class

#75

Post by refurb »

dventimi wrote: post #68
refurb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so your logic is - we create more jobs and pay workers high wages creates housing demand, and that’s bad? So new jobs and high pay are bad? That sounds incredibly anti-worker.

> So new jobs and high pay are bad? They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are also "workers".

Don't have what? Teacher, restaurant workers and custodial staff have jobs.

But regardless, your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less?

Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" because deprecates existing things? If so, how far does this go?

Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results?

This seems like an "anti-progress" mindset.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#76

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #73
dventimi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's abundance in one's material conditions. That's not technology. Technology is knowledge. That's completely different.

Technology is the application of knowledge. Often to improve one's material conditions. Even an average person in this day's age has amenities that nobody , not even the wealthiest noble, could have achieved in preindustrial eras. We have air conditioning, electricity, antibiotics, vaccines, antiseptic, and near-instant communication worldwide. Our material conditions have drastically improved. Wealth is not finite,…

I suspect these people do not have ready access to air conditioning, electricity, or even antibiotics, and they're not going to get it simply by appealing to "technology."

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/haiti/overview#1

Re: Inequality Without Class

#77

Post by knome »

dventimi wrote: post #72
Manuel_D wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, poverty does not create wealth. The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty. This comment is prototypical of a zero-sum mindset.

> The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty. How do you think the less-affluent countries became that way? By enriching the affluent countries, that's how.

Less affluent is the default state of things. It doesn't require a conspiracy or domineering other to create it.

You can argue the more affluent countries didn't help the less affluent ones enough. But there is literally billions in aid that goes from affluent to less affluent countries every year.

Unfortunately, aid is a short term fix for problems. The only real way to help them is to properly invest in them, which requires a stability that less affluent countries often lack.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#78

Post by dventimi »

refurb wrote: post #75
dventimi wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So new jobs and high pay are bad? They're bad for the people who don't have them, like teachers, restaurant workers, and custodial staff...people who are also "workers".

Don't have what? Teacher, restaurant workers and custodial staff have jobs. But regardless, your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less? Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad" because deprecates existing things? If so, how far does this go? Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience s…

> Don't have what?

new jobs and high pay

> your argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad because other people make less

My argument is that new, higher paying jobs are bad for the people who don't have them. Is your argument that they're somehow good for the people who don't have them?

> Do you hold a general belief that all progress is "bad"

No. My belief is that progress is not "good" for the people who don't share in the benefits of that progress. Are you going to argue otherwise?

> Would you consider a new cancer drug "bad" because all those people who received an older drug didn't get to experience such good results?

No, but if a person suffers because they can't afford a new cancer drug and regards that as "bad", I'm not going to tell them they're wrong to make that judgement. Are you?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#79

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #71
dventimi wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At one given instant sure [goods and services are finite] I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. > the key thing is that over time the collection of goods and services grows. That's cold comfort for people who never live to see a time when they can compete for those goods and services.

> I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased. Yes, the amount of wealth at Monday, 03-Jun-24 04:12:33 UTC is going to be finite, because that's a fixed point in time . This is just a pointless tangent, because in our world time is not frozen. In our reality, where time flows, wealth is not finite and is indeed grown in absolute terms. > That's cold…

>>> At any given time are there, or are there not, finite goods and services?

>> At one given instant sure

> Wrong, wealth is not finite

Perhaps you could make up your mind.

> Yes, people who lived in preindustrial societies saw more or less fixed living standards for generations. But fortunately for us, we live in one of the most economically dynamic points of in all of human history [1]. Your statement does ring true for most of human history, but not in our age.

These people do not live in a preindustrial society.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/28/poverty-raci...

Re: Inequality Without Class

#80

Post by dventimi »

knome wrote: post #77
dventimi wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty. How do you think the less-affluent countries became that way? By enriching the affluent countries, that's how.

Less affluent is the default state of things. It doesn't require a conspiracy or domineering other to create it. You can argue the more affluent countries didn't help the less affluent ones enough. But there is literally billions in aid that goes from affluent to less affluent countries every year. Unfortunately, aid is a short term fix for problems. The only real way to help them is to properly invest in them, which…

> Less affluent is the default state of things.

No it isn't.

> It doesn't require a conspiracy or domineering other to create it.

I never said anything about a conspiracy.

> You can argue the more affluent countries didn't help the less affluent ones enough. But there is literally billions in aid that goes from affluent to less affluent countries every year.

I suspect the less affluent countries wouldn't object to less aid and investment from the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iran_coup

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html

Post reply on HN