Why Inequality Matters • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#151

Post by taeric » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:39 PM UTC

osteele wrote: post #31

r0h1n wrote: post #10

I must say Bill Gates, in his post Microsoft avatar, continues to surprise me constantly. This is a refreshingly candid and sanguine review of Piketty's book from someone who was a ruthless capitalist not so long ago. Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances. Here's a few of Gates' conclusions: > Piketty is rig…

> Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances Doesn't your use of "self-servingly" here apply to anyone who acts consistently on their beliefs? If Gates (a) believes that philanthropy is ethical and effective, and he therefore both (b) engages in philanthropy and (c) advocates philanthropy, then (b) and (c) are se…

Well, this does sidestep the argument of whether certain forms of philanthropy should be encouraged over others. I do think this is more of a cultural problem than otherwise.

I'm not overly fond of TED talks nowdays, but this one still sticks out as awesome. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about...

Basically, I think the argument is more that we might be better off if philanthropy was viewed as just another form of consumption.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#152

Post by m0th87 » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:39 PM UTC

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #41

chollida1 wrote: post #4

Just a heads up about the book. Its dense, like a Nassim Taleb book dense. it took me over a month to get through it so if you choose to read it, its not a weekend read. If you want the highlights, this economist article does as decent a job of summarizing 400+ pages as you can hope for in 4 paragraphs. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/ec... As for the content, the main take away, is his r >…

Nassim Taleb is dense, but not in the way you mean...New Yorker-level hand-wavy, extreme generalizations, OMG the horror of how stupid everyone else is...but if you can get past the pompous jackassery it is true there is much to be learned from him.

It's interesting that you critique Taleb's broad generalizations, and then typecast him as a handy-wavy New Yorker at the same time.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#153

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:40 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #90

saalweachter wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with differentiating between the "good investor" and the "lavish lifestyle guy" is that the good investor is actually the one that you (rather, Piketty) need to be most worried about. People worried about inequality aren't (just) worried about the morality of consumption -- a fat cat sitting atop a mountain of cash drinking champagne and eating caviar while the peasants starve. They're worried about maint…

Interesting argument, but surely you don't think the world needs less investment? So if you're going to tax away money that would otherwise be invested in creating businesses and jobs, what do you think should be done with it instead? Or do you think the state is a more efficient investor of capital? I do agree that wealth is a potent weapon, but that's why capitalism works best when markets, and politics are well re…

Investment in what, though?

We do need investment in transport infrastructure, renewable energy, health in the developing world, etc; but that doesn't offer a direct return to the investor as the benefits are distributed. In those cases arguably the state can be better. Provided the money isn't siphoned away. This is more of a rule of law / public trust issue.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#154

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:40 PM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #136

crdoconnor wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way: "Limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth" is a very normal pretext for slashing taxes for the wealthy.

That's what one political party wants you to believe, and quite possibly yes, what the other political party is doing these days. However, if you cut taxes across the board, not just for the wealthy, the concentration of wealth does tend to even out. The statement 'Limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth' in itself does not mean slashing taxes only for the wealthy. It means the government has…

> However, if you cut taxes across the board, not just for the wealthy, the concentration of wealth does tend to even out.

I don't see any reason or evidence for this, that is, for the proposition that ceteris paribus and independent of the distribution of tax burden, reducing the level of taxation promotes a more equal distribution of wealth.

Certainly, to the extent that a given distribution of taxation itself promotes inequality, reducing the level of taxation in with that distribution will mitigate that effect, but your proposition is equivalent to the proposition that every distribution of taxation promotes inequality compared to the absence of taxation, which I don't see any reason to believe.

> The statement 'Limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth' in itself does not mean slashing taxes only for the wealthy. It means the government has limited power to decide who gets what

IOW, the thing called government is less the actual vehicle through which society is governed and more of a distracting figurehead for the masses, and the powerful govern through other means -- and still for their own benefit and others expense (but without even the need to provide a show of public participation and concern for the public interest.)

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#155

Post by protonfish » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:40 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #135

protonfish wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no supply-side economist, or advocate of Brave New World consumerism, but I believe that taxing the purchase of actual consumer products would not have a positive effect on the economy of the country. I believe a healthy economy is an active one. An incentive to remove money from active circulation (hoarding) could have long-term negative repercussions. And a country where the government encourages the average pe…

Why is investment "hoarding"? Money in the bank is moving around, even without the multiplier of partial reserve banking.

Not all of it is hoarding, but some of it is. The effects on the economy between letting your money sit in government bonds vs. purchasing a consumable cannot be even close. The worst is investing in foreign companies - that wealth completely disappears from the domestic economy. Stock options and commodities and currency speculation create no wealth, only move funds from one person to another. Even typical investments are mostly a closed loop where money moves from one wealthy investor to the next, never entering the general economy.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#156

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:41 PM UTC

forgingahead wrote: post #98

saalweachter wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with differentiating between the "good investor" and the "lavish lifestyle guy" is that the good investor is actually the one that you (rather, Piketty) need to be most worried about. People worried about inequality aren't (just) worried about the morality of consumption -- a fat cat sitting atop a mountain of cash drinking champagne and eating caviar while the peasants starve. They're worried about maint…

Currently, 436 people (Reps, Senators and President) control nearly 4 trillion dollars, the budget for this year. What should we do about them?

Vote for or against them in the elections provided for the purpose?

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#157

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:41 PM UTC

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #147

brandonmenc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m also a big believer in the estate tax As a third-generation American, I find the estate tax, even in its current form, extremely offensive, because it strives to reset every generation to zero instead of letting families establish themselves over time by building on the sacrifice and efforts of the parents. The current level of taxation, even though it's been recently, "graciously" increased, greatly extends th…

It's just a different mentality towards life and entitlement- there's nothing sad about it. Hitting all your points in order: 1) 1 million dollars is a lot of money to come out of nowhere. It's simply dishonest to pretend that isn't a life changing amount for a middle class family. At the very least it's going to be like you said- modest home paid off(100-500k), car loans all paid off(50k), and student loans paid off…

That's Polyanna thinking, that an estate tax will benefit humanity. What nation do you live in? You trust the govt to spend your wealth, more than say a relative? I don't believe it.

And 'wealth' isn't all gold buried in the back yard. Its also investments in businesses (either stocks or directly) as a corporation or even a proprietorship. Who runs the restaurant after you die? The government? Preposterous.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#158

Post by tsunamifury » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:43 PM UTC

jdimov wrote: post #104

saalweachter wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with differentiating between the "good investor" and the "lavish lifestyle guy" is that the good investor is actually the one that you (rather, Piketty) need to be most worried about. People worried about inequality aren't (just) worried about the morality of consumption -- a fat cat sitting atop a mountain of cash drinking champagne and eating caviar while the peasants starve. They're worried about maint…

You shouldn't be afraid of the Gates and Buffetts of the world. These guys have found their place, they know their value and their worth and they know how to create wealth for themselves and for others. They are secure, confident, valuable human beings. You should be FAR more afraid of all the incompetent "big shot" politicians who somehow have access to power but, due to their insecurity and low IQ, only use it to b…

I think its telling you omit non-founding CEO's who have been placed at the heads of companies in nearly exactly the same fashion.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#159

Post by gyardley » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:43 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #86

Joeboy wrote: post #23

> I think we’d be best off with a progressive tax on consumption In theory I like the idea of a "tax on consumption", because it suggests a penalty on conspicuous consumption and wasteful spending. In practice, taxes on consumption are seen as regressive, ie. they affect the poor more than the rich. Is there a way to tax "bad" consumption, without penalizing people who "consume" a large proportion of their income sim…

>In theory I like the idea of a "tax on consumption", because it suggests a penalty on conspicuous consumption and wasteful spending. If you want a penalty on conspicuous consumption then simply levy taxes on items which count as conspicuous consumption - yachts, private jets, houses > $2 million USD, super cars, etc. It would probably not be a huge list and it wouldn't be a complicated rule. You might miss one or tw…

We've done all this before - in the early 1990s, George HW Bush passed a 10% luxury tax on yachts, private planes, furs and a few other high-value items. Maybe expensive cars, I don't remember perfectly.

The government figured these measures would bring in X dollars in new revenue. It actually brought in much less, about 0.5X, as the purchasers of luxury goods changed their behavior. After the cost of unemployment benefits to people - thousands in the boat-building industry, among others, lost their jobs - the luxury tax ended up being a net negative for the government. It was repealed a couple of years later.

The economy's too complex for us to experiment on without unintended and unanticipated side effects. That doesn't mean we should never experiment with it - as long as we do it cautiously - but we should at least learn some lessons from the experiments we've already conducted.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#160

Post by moggflunkies » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:43 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #101

enraged_camel wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're being a bit too harsh on couchand. First of all, I didn't interpret his comment as attacking Shinkei. I think he posed it as a general question for the audience. Secondly, I don't see it as nitpicking. It's a reasonable discussion to have. Piketty himself spends a fair amount of pages discussing how a global wealth tax might be implemented, and people's attitudes towards taxation in general have to be…

>, I didn't interpret his comment as attacking Shinkei. I'm not saying he attacked Shinkei. couchand criticized the message and not the messenger which is certainly acceptable. I'm pointing out that he's criticizing a figure-of-speech by stating to us the legal literal definition of "punish". Because couchand didn't parse Shinkei's "punish-as-in- sentiment ", he made the mistake of equivocation[1] and talks about pun…

You utilizing the word "annoying" triggers me. I don't respect the underlying and implied racist/sexist usage that you created in your comment. Simply calling someone "annoying" is just a thinly veiled attempt at getting away with saying a word like "fag" or any another racial epithet. Just because someone annoys you, doesn't mean that you can strike them from the conversation. Just because you are a well-off, privileged male, don't forget that not that long ago African-Americans and Homosexuals "annoyed" you too.

Anyways, I just wanted to jump in and add noise to the discussion by nitpicking like jasode too!