Why Inequality Matters • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#101

Post by jasode » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 2:56 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #74

jasode wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't add noise to the discussion by nitpicking something that doesn't need to be nitpicked. Shinkei already put scare quotes around the word "punished" so any reasonable person should interpret that he does not mean "punish" in a formalized legal sense. His usage was a figure-of-speech and not citing any legal doctrine. People can use punish the same way people can use reward when then say they felt "rewarded…

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 punishement-as-in-prison-sentence-from-illegal-tax-evasion.

It's as if someone says "butterflies in my stomach" and a nitpicker adds a ST-MrSpock/ST:TNG-Data type of literal reply. Mr Spock asks, "Why do people use the term 'butterflies'? Caterpillars cannot incubate in the human stomach and metamorphose into a butterflies." Most observers would find that response annoying instead of being relevant to the conversation about nervousness.

Sure, there can be other motives such as helping someone conquer stage fright but hopefully you agree that correcting someone with formal biology definitions of "butterflies" does not achieve that objective at all.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#102

Post by josefresco » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 2:59 PM UTC

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #67

Must be some American specialty. At the end, Bill Gates sees Philanthropy as (part of a) solution. This must have something to do with the US-American history and background? I heard that opinion so often and we are in deed in an era of big philanthropists (like Bill himself). But I (no American, and maybe missing some genetics for it) can not see any solution in it. The biggest philanthropists today are in the US, b…

The difference between Gates' wealth now and where he began as a "rich kid" is mind numbingly huge making what he started with almost insignificant. Yes Gates had a "head start" as many in this world do, but that only got him so far. I would also argue that Gates is really a bad (business/financial) example all around due to his massive wealth which really has no comparison.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#103

Post by judk » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 2:59 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #87

"I don’t see anyone on the list whose ancestors bought a great parcel of land in 1780 and have been accumulating family wealth by collecting rents ever since." What you do see though, in the same Fortune 400 list is that 6 of the top 10 people on that list didn't build their companies (in the sense that Bill Gates did), they inherited them. I don't know how much the current crop Kochs or Waltons are responsible for t…

Top 400 is misleading. In US capitalism, single winners like Gates and Zuck Rockettes to the top. Look at the next many thousands, the grandchildren of previous barons who each have a share of inheritance, still far in excess of the productive classes.

Look at the Bush and Kennedy dynasties in government.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#104

Post by jdimov » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:00 PM UTC

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…

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 benefit by taking from others. These are the plutocrats that rule America, Russia, Europe, regardless of your illusion of democracy. These are the people you should be worried about.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#105

Post by bsbechtel » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:00 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #84

bsbechtel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is somewhat important, because much of what would have been the "old money" in the US was effectively disrupted by massive technology changes. This is the point I am trying to make...if this old money had been reinvesting in technology over the past 150 years, it might have been possible to maintain it. Fortunately in the US, the mechanisms were not in place for the government to help these rentiers maintain th…

Right, but now we have investment vehicles where you can effectively invest in investments alone. No longer must you invest in a rail company and do all you can to make them do well. You can literally invest in the volatility of said rail company. Further, yes, you can invest in manipulating the government to make sure that company does well. But, without the government, you could likely also just invest directly in…

>>Right, but now we have investment vehicles where you can effectively invest in investments alone.

This is a big problem, and one that is exacerbated by a strong legal system (read - powerful government) that enables, supports, and protects the gains made from these investment vehicles while disproportionately minimizing their downside risks.

>But, without the government, you could likely also just invest directly in competitors to keep them down such that said company still does well.

This is entirely possible, but remember that as an investor, your dollars are competing against other investors' dollars. More often than not, you are also investing as a shareholder with many other shareholders who have interests in seeing that company succeed. While I think what you are saying is theoretically possible, I'm not sure it would be a common occurrence, unless you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#106

Post by crdoconnor » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:01 PM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #92

crdoconnor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The other option is to limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth. That's one of the core ideologies UNDERLYING the great shift in wealth from poor to rich: that politics should have no say in wealth allocation. What that ultimately means is that the rules of wealth allocation are decided by the wealthy without democratic oversight. Hence here we are.

>That's one of the core ideologies UNDERLYING the great shift in wealth from poor to rich: that politics should have no say in wealth allocation. Please provide evidence or reasoning to back up why you think this causes money to flow from the poor to the rich.

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.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#107

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:02 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #69

noarchy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem with relying, even partially, on philanthropy to correct some of the imbalances of capitalism is that one encounters the free rider problem. Do you think that the free rider problem is corrected by state-run welfare programs? I'd be skeptical of such a claim, myself. >There is also the issue where a very wealthy person has as their philanthropic cause something which few others think is a good choice of…

Regarding your last paragraph. It's a problem if too much money is given to causes that don't really benefit society as a whole. There is also the fact that there are no instances of philanthropy ever being at a high enough amount to provide for the general welfare of all of the poor. Only government programs have ever been enough to do this. Government programs scale better than philanthropic ones. It is true that p…

> Only government programs have ever been enough to do this.

Considering "the war on poverty" is 50 years old with no end in sight. I think it's bold to claim that any government has adequately eradicated the symptoms of poverty.

And why to philanthropies need to scale? What's wrong with numerous hyperlocal philanthropies that treat the particular needs of their communities?

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#108

Post by 123testaccount » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:02 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #57

Bill gates is impressive. It's a hard subject to stay objective with. The validity of the data has some level of uncertainty (by its nature). The interpretation of the data too. I have yet to find an explanation (by Pickety or others) that made me understand the mechanics of the "Snowball Effect" at the centre of it all: 'r > g.' Once you get into the soup of morality and policy, well… I like how he starts with the t…

With regard to the mechanics of the "Snowball Effect", my understanding is that the flat tax on capital gains vs the progressive tax on income is one cause in the US.

I would speculate that one other mechanic has to do with time. For the vast majority of people there is a hard cap on wage income based on the hours they can possibly work in a day. People who have money to invest can put that to work for them offline, so to speak.

And at a certain threshhold a person can put their money to use to pay for specialized labor (tax attorneys, finance managers etc) to receive an even greater return.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#109

Post by josefresco » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:03 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #7

"For example, a medical student with no income and lots of student loans would look in the official statistics like she’s in a dire situation but may well have a very high income in the future." Not that I really disagree with the point here, but I can't help but wonder whether or not the people in the categories he listed exist in large enough numbers to get out of the noise category. Heck, I would think there are a…

I had the same impression after reading these "examples" They seemed like massive outliers and not worth evening mentioning. Also, someone in medical school (or any schooling) isn't guaranteed riches. One could argue that a student in medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt is in fact, still in dire straits despite their future earning potential.

Re: Why Inequality Matters

#110

Post by bsbechtel » Thu, Oct 16, 2014, 3:06 PM UTC

dmm wrote: post #15

bsbechtel wrote: post #12

>High levels of inequality are a problem—messing up economic incentives, tilting democracies in favor of powerful interests, and undercutting the ideal that all people are created equal. I agree with generally all of Gates' thoughts here, but there are two actors to consider when discussing how to address problems associated with inequality - the government, and those who own capital. There is an implicit assumption…

The common core is a just a standard of what should be taught and when. It is not a curriculum. It is not a book or set of books. It solves a real problem: schools in the US cover subjects at wildly differing times so when children change school districts they may have huge holes in their education.

That's not really relevant to my point. I was trying to demonstrate that it is entirely possible for someone with a lot of money to influence policy in the US, using Gates own activities as an example.

Next time, it could easily be someone who is using their own money to push a policy requiring iPads or Windows tablets into every classroom, or using their own money to fight off an anti-trust lawsuit being brought forward by the government.