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

111–120 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#111

Post by dventimi »

slothtrop wrote: post #107
dventimi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 le…

> No it isn't. What, you think these places are a shining beacon the moment they stop exporting a single resource?

> What, you think these places are a shining beacon the moment they stop exporting a single resource?

I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#113

Post by rqtwteye »

Jensson wrote: post #38
rqtwteye wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

I agree. I was more pointing out that the previous comment stated that we basically have a choice of 10x more Musks and no homeless people or equality with lots of homelessness. I think there is zero evidence that increasing the number of rich people will help the issue at all.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#114

Post by dventimi »

slothtrop wrote: post #106
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.

The poorest countries trade the least with the rest of the world.

Even if that were true, which I'm absolutely not willing to accept without evidence, trade is not the only way that wealthy nations impoverish poor nations. There are others: war, political instability, environmental degradation, etc.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#115

Post by dventimi »

slothtrop wrote: post #108
dventimi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's technology, not wealth.

It's wealth.

It's technology, which is information not material goods. The technology--the information--necessary to create an iPhone didn't exist in the world 40 years ago, but it does now. So what? Armed with that information alone, is that somehow going to get you an iPhone?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#116

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #99
roenxi wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased Possibly the word you want to be using is limited; it is slightly harder for people to make pretend that the pie is fixed with that one. Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite, since wealth doesn't have to be physical.

> Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite. Sounds like they might be your opponent! > since wealth doesn't have to be physical. Living in the physical world as I do, I require that my needs for physical wealth be met first: goods and services like food, shelter, safety, furnishings, entertainment,…

> LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite

Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time."

Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow?

Re: Inequality Without Class

#117

Post by ryandrake »

roenxi wrote: post #55
llamaimperative wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

I like your comment because it was logically consistent and there is actually an argument in there that I respect. However, you appear to be saying that the 1100s (where people were, I note, substantially more equal than today in absolute terms) are comparable to 2000s. I disagree - I would be unfathomably depressed/angry/anxious if my living standards reverted to my social equivalent in the 1100s, conditions were ba…

How about this argument? This is kind of how I look at the problem:

Would it be OK to have a single individual worth $1e24, while everyone else has the standard distribution of wealth as we know it in 2024? A septillionaire could give $1 trillion to every person on the planet every year for 100 years and still have 99.99% of his money left. How much power and influence over the world would someone like that have, while the rest have comparatively close to zero? I think we all agree that wouldn't work for a functioning society--we have to have some limit. We probably also agree that $1million is probably too low a limit. So it's not a question of whether there should be a limit but where that threshold is.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#118

Post by dventimi »

dventimi wrote: post #98
roenxi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not all wealth exists in the present. It is like counting from 1 to 5 and concluding that the maximum size of an integer is finite because so far the count has only reached 5. It is not so, however. The maximum size of an integer is infinite even though any particular integer is finite.

Not all people on Earth exist in the present, either. At any given time in the past there were fewer of them, and at any given time in the near future at least there probably will be more of them. Does that mean that the number of people on Earth is infinite? While you're thinking about that, think about this. You and I live in the present. Of what use is it to us in the present if there's more total wealth in some f…

> Not all people on Earth exist in the present

Correction: That should be, "Not all people on Earth who have existed in the past or will exist in the future exist in our present."

Re: Inequality Without Class

#119

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> No, goods and services are not finite

Yes, they are.

> Humanity is increasing the pool of goods and services in absolute terms all the time.

The ever-increasing amount is still finite, at any given time and even aggregated over the entire history from the evolution of humanity to its inevitable extinction.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#120

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #116
dventimi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although your point is much stronger than your opponents - wealth is infinite LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite. Sounds like they might be your opponent! > since wealth doesn't have to be physical. Living in the physical world as I do, I require that my needs for physical wealth be met first: goods and services like food, shelter, safety, furnishings, entertainment,…

> LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow?

> Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time."

That's a pretty important qualifier.

> Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow?

That's two questions. Obviously, any one of us exists for a finite interval of time, that's for sure. Let's call that "a lifetime." Does technological innovation occur, does the world's productive output increase, and do average living standards rise over a typical lifetime? Sure. Does that mean that wealth is infinite? Not at all. Among other things, it depends on exactly what you mean by "infinite" which, so far, you've never said. Does time flow? I'll leave that to the philosophers.

OK. I've answered your questions. Now answer this one, please.

If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead?

Post reply on HN