Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Inequality Matters

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 462 posts

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#421

Post by bjourne »

VexXtreme wrote: post #413
bjourne wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or do you think the state is a more efficient investor of capital? Absolutely! The number of inventions that was created by government investments absolutely dwarfs the number of privately funded inventions. Internet, GPS, cancer research, nuclear power.. I've never heard a logical explanation to why companies should be more efficient than states. Everyone just seem to take it as a given because "everyone knows" th…

Your statement is fallacious. If governments are more efficient at creating inventions and advancing science, then according to that logic, a big government with greater power should be more efficient at advancing technological and scientific progress. Yet, the majority of important technological and scientific inventions usually come from free-market based capitalistic societies. I don't see countries like North Kor…

USA has a larger government compared to GDP than both China and Russia (42% vs 36% and 24%). There are no stats for North Korea. If you want to argue the free-market gospel, then you have to explain why almost all third world countries have small governments and very low taxes.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#422

Post by [deleted] »

VexXtreme wrote: post #413
bjourne wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or do you think the state is a more efficient investor of capital? Absolutely! The number of inventions that was created by government investments absolutely dwarfs the number of privately funded inventions. Internet, GPS, cancer research, nuclear power.. I've never heard a logical explanation to why companies should be more efficient than states. Everyone just seem to take it as a given because "everyone knows" th…

Your statement is fallacious. If governments are more efficient at creating inventions and advancing science, then according to that logic, a big government with greater power should be more efficient at advancing technological and scientific progress. Yet, the majority of important technological and scientific inventions usually come from free-market based capitalistic societies. I don't see countries like North Kor…

[deleted]

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#423

Post by saalweachter »

VexXtreme wrote: post #412
capisce wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we shouldn't attempt to disincentivize countries from building up a nuclear arsenal, as long as they haven't nuked anyone yet?

You didn't answer his question whether it's ok to try to neuter the power that people derive from certain innate attributes. I.e. is it OK to make an exceptionally good looking person pay a higher tax, because there's a loose correlation between physical appearance and one's ability to secure a good future? Furthermore, doesn't everyone deserve the same shot at procreating with a good looking individual? Shouldn't we…

Your argument is assuming that property rights are as important and as fundamental as other human rights. I personally am quite comfortable distinguishing between "what a person can own" and "what a person can be", and don't view property rights as anywhere near as fundamental as rights like freedom of speech or association or movement.

So I think the notion of a slippery slope towards eugenics is absurd; that's like saying that dancing leads to lynching because both involve crowds of people and tend to happen at night. That's not to say that there isn't a slope towards, say, absolute communism or radically unfair property seizure, but that's way less scary.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#424

Post by prof_hobart »

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…

> People who have wealth are going to be better with that wealth than people who don't.

Do you have any empirical data to back that up? The lack of old money that Gates alludes to in his article seems to suggest otherwise.

Even with the advantages that simply having large amounts of wealth gives you (better education, easier access to seed capital for new ventures, better access to other influential people etc), surprisingly few of the modern day mega rich in the US started out with large amounts of wealth.

There's also plenty of evidence (such as http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/for-ceos-cor...) to suggest there's little, if any, correlation between how much a CEO earns and the success of a company.

> The average person isn't as well equipped to deal with large problems as the elite are.

I would agree that not everyone is equally well equipped to deal with large problems, but I don't see much evidence to suggest that there's much correlation between wealth and ability to successfully tackle the myriad problems facing the average society. Is a multi-millionaire businessman automatically better placed to decide on education policy than a teaching professional, or on the structure of a nations health service than medical professionals etc?

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#425

Post by brc »

VexXtreme wrote: post #409
brc wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wealth redistribution doesn't necessarily mean taking money/wealth, literally, from wealthy and giving it away to poor. " What? How could you possibly describe it any other way? You take cash from a wealthy person, and you give it to other people, either in dirk react payments or sbisized/free services. Argue about whether that is the correct/incorrect thing to do all you lie, but don't indulge in Orwellian doublesp…

Looks like you're getting downvoted, even though your statement is basically correct. It's very sad that it's getting harder and harder to have a fruitful discussion here on HN. Some people are more interested in downvoting based on their immediate emotional reaction, rather than having a rational, honest discussion. If you disagree with someone, then reply to their post and try to have civilized discourse, don't jus…

Eh, I'm used to it. I don't particularly care about karma points. I'm proud of my unfashionable opinions. Each one is the result of careful thought, aware from the blare of popular media and popular opinion.

The herd instinct is getting stronger, and the rush to censor unfashionable opinions increases on HN. Which is funny, because one of the best essays by pg is 'what you can't say'. Closely followed by 'mind the gap'. Which essentially says that inequality is a sign of a healthy society, because lack of inequality shows the innovators and risk takers have gone elsewhere or closed up shop.

Maybe it was my tablet spelling mistakes in my post.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#426

Post by GFischer »

brc wrote: post #425
VexXtreme wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like you're getting downvoted, even though your statement is basically correct. It's very sad that it's getting harder and harder to have a fruitful discussion here on HN. Some people are more interested in downvoting based on their immediate emotional reaction, rather than having a rational, honest discussion. If you disagree with someone, then reply to their post and try to have civilized discourse, don't jus…

Eh, I'm used to it. I don't particularly care about karma points. I'm proud of my unfashionable opinions. Each one is the result of careful thought, aware from the blare of popular media and popular opinion. The herd instinct is getting stronger, and the rush to censor unfashionable opinions increases on HN. Which is funny, because one of the best essays by pg is 'what you can't say'. Closely followed by 'mind the ga…

I didn't downvote you, but your post was seriously crippled by the tablet spelling mistakes (especially replacing lie for like).

If you can, I encourage you to edit it.

Edit: also, your argument adscribing the "Orwellian" adjective to the previous post is very strong and can generate negative reactions (like a downvote).

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#427

Post by stuaxo »

He mentions three kinds of wealthy person and what they spend most of their money on.

Surely the 4th is the most important - the one who is NOT spending most of their money.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#428

Post by JoeAltmaier »

stuaxo wrote: post #427

He mentions three kinds of wealthy person and what they spend most of their money on. Surely the 4th is the most important - the one who is NOT spending most of their money.

I'm always confused about the question of 'what wealthy people do with their money'. Unless its buried in a jar in the back yard, its invested in something, just like yours and mine, in a bank or CD or stocks. Its ALL 'spent'. What am I missing?

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#429

Post by eli_gottlieb »

saalweachter wrote: post #42
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…

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…

>Wealth taxes are about disarming everyone -- good and evil -- for the safety of us all, not about morality.

Funny, I'd call that a moral imperative, and go on to say that consumption is good. Even when it's on gaudy-ass McMansions, consumption usually means, more or less, that someone, somewhere, is actually having fun with his life. We ought to be encouraging that rather than encouraging nonstop accumulation of liquid financial wealth in the guise of the Virtue of Thrift.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#430

Post by lmm »

noarchy wrote: post #389
lmm wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do.

>Nowhere near 100%. Most people pay their taxes not because they're rationally responding to threat of force but because they think it's the right thing to do. As a thought experiment, imagine that taxation became completely voluntary tomorrow. What percentage of its former revenue does the government make? Suddenly, the government has to compete with other entities for money. Government doesn't know the competition…

The experiment's already been done. No-one descended from the heavens and imposed our current governmental system; what we have now is what people did. If you remove the government, people band together into organizations that behave the same way: first you get something like a union where people pay dues and get certain benefits, their decision making structure evolves, and eventually the organization decides to cover everyone and force everyone to contribute. (It's been quite amusing to watch this happening in miniature in eve online)

Of course it's possible to set arbitrary rules under which a government doesn't form, or corporations provide something better, but those rules end up being very arbitrary.

Post reply on HN