Why Inequality Matters • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#211

Post by shadowfox » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:29 PM UTC

Taek wrote: post #177

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…

One thing that always bothers me about wealth distribution is that you can't simply move wealth around and expect things to get better. People who have wealth are going to be better with that wealth than people who don't. They grew up with wealthy people, have managed the wealth for a long time, have witnessed mistakes and successes, and overall have spent a lot of time contemplating wealth. If you take that wealth a…

> It's an unpopular opinion, but I don't think that everyone should have a roughly equal say in how things go. The average person isn't as well equipped to deal with large problems as the elite are

The usual trouble with this sort of idea is who gets to decide the "elite" that makes the decisions. How do you prevent this group from becoming an insular clique and debar other people from similar opportunities etc.

Power, imho, has a tendency to be self-propogating; people who achieve it hold on to it far after it is useful and tend to bestow it on their proteges, irrespective of their suitability to the task etc. (Anyway it is an opinion; you may disagree)

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#212

Post by icebraining » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:29 PM UTC

jkscm wrote: post #126

icebraining wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government can choose who is more deserving of their money; it can't choose who is more deserving of their generosity.

Do you live in a democratic country?

I don't know, define "democracy". I live in a Western European country, but I don't see how is that relevant.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#213

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:31 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #163

humanrebar wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody said that. It's a fair point that five million dollars isn't as much money as it seems, especially when accounting for healthcare costs. If the government took most of that money, this grandmother would have burnt through the remaining money quickly and ended up on government-assisted healthcare with much less choice about the kinds and quality of care. It's very pertinent.

It was stated that $5 million puts one in the upper echelons of society. This is a true statement. It is also true that a calamity can wipe out that amount of money. I do not believe the issues are related in that I don't think it makes for good public policy to make the taxation threshold for estate taxes to be at the calamity-proof level. It appears to be possible from what you've said about your grandmother's situ…

It's not my grandmother.

I just thought the downvotes were uncalled for. And I think your threshold for what's a reasonable estate is both arbitrary and too low.

$5 million sounds like a lot, but give it a decade. Many family businesses are already valued over $5 million. Should functioning businesses be liquidated because the founder died? Soon, family homes in places like NYC, SF, and DC will be within spitting distance of $5 million. Should the family have to get a new mortgage or move because grandma died?

Besides, I don't have confidence that the general fund of the federal government would better spend that money than someone seeking health and indirectly pouring money into better medical science and technology.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#214

Post by cheepin » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:31 PM UTC

Taek wrote: post #177

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…

One thing that always bothers me about wealth distribution is that you can't simply move wealth around and expect things to get better. People who have wealth are going to be better with that wealth than people who don't. They grew up with wealthy people, have managed the wealth for a long time, have witnessed mistakes and successes, and overall have spent a lot of time contemplating wealth. If you take that wealth a…

> I don't think that everyone should have a roughly equal say in how things go.

What is the proper alternative? I mostly agree that designing government by committee is unlikely to succeed, but the problem of choosing competent people for government roles is something we largely haven't solved in all our history.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#215

Post by bsbechtel » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:32 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #191

bsbechtel wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Another pretext/excuse for slashing taxes on the ultrawealthy. >the concentration of wealth does tend to even out. Except this was tried and that's not actually what happened.

Please provide specific evidence or reasoning instead of arguing about motives which you can't possibly prove as fact.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#216

Post by manish_gill » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:32 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…

@moggflunkies - You've been hellbanned, your comments are only visible to people who have turned dead comments on. I find this system despicable.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#217

Post by jeangenie » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:32 PM UTC

tsunamifury wrote: post #138

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…

I strongly disagree with this conclusion and I believe it not-so-subtly implies we should use the tax code as a form of moralization. What about all the people who make the super-yatchs for the wealthy. Or the all the contractors employed to make the luxury towers in downtowns across the world. Tens of thousands if not millions of people directly gain (and likely from the middle and lower classes) from the spending o…

> re-invests it in ways to achieve political gain at the expense of society.

A cynical person would say that's pretty much what the Gates Foundation accomplishes.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#218

Post by tomp » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:32 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #197

astazangasta wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't speak for everyone. Personally I think the idea that we need wealth concentration at all is bogus. Investment is already performed by teams of skilled experts on behalf of the wealthy. We don't need individuals who simply perform the function of owning things and reaping the benefits for literally doing nothing. There are better ways we could be allocating capital. We also don't need wealth concentration to enc…

The vast majority of productive people act in the economy for modest rewards and the hope of a middle class life. Devil's advocate: the vast majority of productive people do the important everyday work, but don't perform major improvements in the state of the art. What about the inventors of life-changing technology? Would the vast majority of them invest years of their life in it if it only paid the same as getting…

> Would the vast majority of them invest years of their life in it if it only paid the same as getting a normal job?

Empirically, given that academia pays much less than working in the industry, yes.

> the vast majority of productive people do the important everyday work

I beg to differ. Most productive people do completely irrelevant everyday work: optimize or sell ads, or play wall-street poker with other people's money. Very few people do the actually important work (e.g. garbage collectors, farmers, scientists, teachers).

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#219

Post by nickff » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:34 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #173

simonh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, the state is a more efficient investor of capital. Counterintuitive as it may be, just taking money and giving it to poor people is a very good investment in terms of the public good that results. A rich individual investing into a funded company is much more visible, but that same money spread more widely might launch hundreds of "lifestyle businesses" that would ultimately be more productive.

>"the state is a more efficient investor of capital."

Do you have evidence for this claim?

If this is the case, shouldn't the countries with the biggest governments (as a percentage of total economy) also be the ones which grow the fastest, and if not, why? How can states be so efficient when they never admit to making mistakes, (almost never) give up on failed projects, or go out of business like private investors do?

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#220

Post by aidenn0 » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 4:34 PM UTC

wes-exp wrote: post #30

sharemywin wrote: post #11

This is where it gets complicated for me. Gates value judges the rich person spending money on a yacht and plane. Planes and yachts are pretty complicated gadgets that employ a lot of engineers and others. The plane makers technology might even contribute to some other kind of businesses similar to the space program in the sixties and seventies. Where as tech companies sitting on piles of cash because they don't know…

Employment is all good and well, but one needs to consider: what are the second-order effects of that action? For instance, you could employ people to dig holes that serve no purpose. Or, you could employ people to build public infrastructure that continues to pay dividends over its lifetime. Buying the yacht is a little bit like digging useless holes, because it's basically a very costly form of recreation that does…

If someone wealthy willingly gives their money to people to dig holes and fill them back in, it has redistributed some of the wealth. This is at least slightly more efficient than taxing them and then employing people with that tax to dig holes and fill them back in.