Live data from Hacker News

People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

theatlantic.com

121–130 of 147 posts

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#121
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you believe something like the Banach-Tarski paradox [0] is possible in our world, there is a relatively constant amount of matter within our reach. (In fact, there is a finite amount of matter that we will ever be able to reach.) This puts a hard cap on how much "stuff" can exist. Therefore, the pie is fixed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

If you define "pie" as a physical chunk of matter under an implied laundry list of restrictions, maaaaaaybe. If you define "pie" as real wealth , then it becomes effectively unbounded; see fractional-reserve banking for a real-world example. If you define "pie" as value of your personal rational utility function, you get a much nicer - which is to say, much less bounded - result. I don't exactly think that Banach-Tar…

I haven't read Permutation City yet, but it's on my list. I haven't heard of the other book, but I'll be looking into it. Thank you for the suggestion.

Multiple universes may just be an artifact of our math. For instance, Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory may provide or point to a resolution.

Ultimately, the economy is measured in "units moved", which is ultimately tied to the amount of "units" available in the entire system.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#122
post #27

This is very true, and why conservative economics just won't die. People would rather see those less fortunate have to beg and suffer than to give up what they 'worked' for. Never mind the fact that we all derive benefit from systems that we inherited, and did not work for...

Can we drop the "conservatives are evil" mantra at some point? It really adds nothing to the discourse. Having a family full of conservatives (mind you I can't speak for all), I can tell you that for them, it comes down to how big the system is and what benefits should be provided by the government or not. The difference in where the line is drawn and why it's drawn is the difference between conservatives and democra…

> I can tell you that for them, it comes down to how big the system is and what benefits should be provided by the government or not.

While that's certainly not a bad thought, we have all benefited from larger government. History shows out that the more government spending and distribution of goods and services there is, the better the economic outlook. Even amongst most developed countries today, the government accounts for around half of GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_perce....

'Small government' is nice as a political philosophy, however it hasn't been shown historically to be a great economic policy.

Not to mention, while right-wing politicians and economists argue for private enterprise, lower taxes, smaller government, less spending, etc..., they simultaneously use state institutions to their advantage. In most economies governments fund research, education, they are responsible for building most infrastructure, funding transit, etc... These things benefit us as a society, yet the same people who reap these benefits every single day argue against paying for them (ie. paying taxes).

The problem with left-wing economics is that they aren't intuitive. Right-wing economics is - it's simple, and reminds people of budgeting at home. The only problem is that when you study macroeconomics, you realize that it's more about behaviour than about finance. Government spending increases GDP, in most cases by more than the dollar amount spent. Social nets increase entrepreneurial behaviour, and reducing poverty always yields social benefits.

> So yes, that does mean that it shouldn't redistribute wealth, at least on the federal level.

No one would argue that the government should only build roads in rich cities. Or only build hospitals in rich cities. Yet creating infrastructure is a redistribution of wealth. When the US government creates a new military base, they're redistributing wealth. When they give money to schools, they're distributing wealth.

Yet for some reason we have it in our heads that 'taking' taxes and then giving 'cash' to others is wrong, but it's OK when the government uses other means to redistribute wealth.

Anyhow, the point is, we see it as 'fair' that we work hard and get paid. That we 'deserve' what we make. That we did it 'alone'. The fact is, wealth cannot be created in a vacuum. Whatever we do, we do because others helped us. We're more than happy to use the institutions created for us, but don't want to share the rewards. We see 'fairness' as more important than prosperity.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#123
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you believe something like the Banach-Tarski paradox [0] is possible in our world, there is a relatively constant amount of matter within our reach. (In fact, there is a finite amount of matter that we will ever be able to reach.) This puts a hard cap on how much "stuff" can exist. Therefore, the pie is fixed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

If you define "pie" as a physical chunk of matter under an implied laundry list of restrictions, maaaaaaybe. If you define "pie" as real wealth , then it becomes effectively unbounded; see fractional-reserve banking for a real-world example. If you define "pie" as value of your personal rational utility function, you get a much nicer - which is to say, much less bounded - result. I don't exactly think that Banach-Tar…

>If you define "pie" as real wealth

Ok...now define real wealth.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#124
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why be so specific by saying income inequality?

Same reason why we call "sea stars", "starfish", when it's not a fish. At this point it's just a name. It's a phrase a lot of people recognize and has become a rallying cry liberals. You can't change it anymore. TL;DR Because marketing.

The issue is that they aren't just using the term starfish - they're usually giving more details about what they mean by "income inequality" and it usually has to do with the 1% literally having more money than most people.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#125
post #86
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Bernie Sanders IS talking about wealth distribution. "There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans." - Bernie Sanders (Also a really misleading stat. If you have a $1 net worth, you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans combined.)

And I'd add -- the Waltons would be a weird example to key on if you were concerned mainly with punishing Wall St. speculators but keeping dynamism and entrepreneurship alive. Regardless of how you feel about WalMart, the Waltons are rich because they built a big, successful business. Not sure why they're first among the villains for ol' Bernie.

Sam Walton built a business. His kids inherited a fortune.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most of us don't define "pie" that way. In particular, I (and, I presume, saulrh) were talking about the economy, not about the total amount of matter within reach of the human race. Even using your definition, though, the pie is not fixed. We can't mine the moon today. Perhaps someday we can. If so, the amount of matter available to us is not fixed. Or perhaps we can mine the earth's core. More mundanely, th…

>I (and, I presume, saulrh) were talking about the economy So am I. What is "the economy"? I submit that it is the tracking of material in space. There is a fixed amount of space on the planet as well. At some point, there will be no more space or material to place another Hearst Castle. I guess someone should provide an example of an "entire new pie". (Interestingly, this is what I demanded in my first post.) My the…

See, you're talking about the fundamental limits of the economy (or the human environment), and the rest of us aren't. We're talking about the economy this year vs the economy last year (or next year). We aren't anywhere near the fundamental limits of the amount of material, or the amount of space. Therefore, what the rest of us mean by "the economy" has plenty of room to grow. And that's where "the new pie" comes from - it's the growth in the actual economy as experienced by actual humans participating in it, not growth in the fundamental limits of the economy.

There are (probably) fundamental limits to the economy. That's a different topic than the one the rest of us are talking about, though.

You keep using the same words ("pie", "economy") to talk about something different, and then you argue that we're wrong. It's tiresome, and also not useful for actual communication.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#127
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if we attempted equality, time would introduce inequality due to the risks people take. One invests wisely, the other gambles away. Do we compensate the gambler to reestablish equilibrium? You just assumed the gambler ended up worse off. What if he won? Do we compensate the investor for his sub-risky-gambling return?

Either way, what do we do with people who take a chance on their own volition and lose perennially? Do we compensate for losses to keep things equal?

How could you possibly justify that if you're not willing to juice the investor's gains when the gambler comes out ahead?

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#128
post #111
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statement only makes sense in a context where both the buyer and seller have roughly equal power. As it is, that has almost never been true when talking about labor. An employer who doesn't have enough employees is still going to be able to compete and make money, just not as much. However, an employee who doesn't get enough work is going to be homeless or starve.

" However, an employee who doesn't get enough work is going to be homeless or starve. " Don't mean to be sarcastic here, but isn't that the whole point of government right now? Foodstamps, welfare payments, child-assistance money, social security, free medical care, etc. At what point can we stop using this supposed "power-differential" between employer and employee as some sort of silent force in the labour market?

Probably when people stop talking about a "supposed" power-differential, realize it exists, and do something about it.

And while you're not wrong that a lot of that safety net stuff is the point of government, you'd have a pretty hard time claiming that they were doing it well, or helping everyone who needed it, especially with a lot of states slashing aid from their budgets in order to give tax cuts.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I (and, I presume, saulrh) were talking about the economy So am I. What is "the economy"? I submit that it is the tracking of material in space. There is a fixed amount of space on the planet as well. At some point, there will be no more space or material to place another Hearst Castle. I guess someone should provide an example of an "entire new pie". (Interestingly, this is what I demanded in my first post.) My the…

See, you're talking about the fundamental limits of the economy (or the human environment), and the rest of us aren't. We're talking about the economy this year vs the economy last year (or next year). We aren't anywhere near the fundamental limits of the amount of material, or the amount of space. Therefore, what the rest of us mean by "the economy" has plenty of room to grow. And that's where "the new pie" comes fr…

My first post here was very simple. Someone needs to show an actual "entire new pie". No one here has done that yet.

They have only said that my idea of "entire new pie" is incorrect (while couching that it is actually probably correct). How can I know the difference between my meaning and yours if you are unable to produce an instance of what you are talking about?

>There are (probably) fundamental limits to the economy. That's a different topic than the one the rest of us are talking about, though.

The topic you are all talking about is subsumed by the more fundamental limits (saulrh even explicitly referred to this in their OP). If there are limits, then there is a notion of fairness. The original premise of saulrh's argument was that "fairness" wasn't useful because the pie is not fixed (even though it is incorrectly [according to saulrh's OP] perceived to be).

I also think that there may not only be universal (or inter-universal [or other])) limits, but there may be local limits as well. For instance, once I create an entire new pie, where does it go? It would need to displace some thing, even if it's just atmospheric molecules.

Re: People Want Fairness, Not Economic Equality

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, you're talking about the fundamental limits of the economy (or the human environment), and the rest of us aren't. We're talking about the economy this year vs the economy last year (or next year). We aren't anywhere near the fundamental limits of the amount of material, or the amount of space. Therefore, what the rest of us mean by "the economy" has plenty of room to grow. And that's where "the new pie" comes fr…

My first post here was very simple. Someone needs to show an actual "entire new pie". No one here has done that yet. They have only said that my idea of "entire new pie" is incorrect (while couching that it is actually probably correct). How can I know the difference between my meaning and yours if you are unable to produce an instance of what you are talking about? >There are (probably) fundamental limits to the eco…

> How can I know the difference between my meaning and yours if you are unable to produce an instance of what you are talking about?

Take the US economy of 1900 as "the pie". The US economy as of 2015 is more than double that, even after accounting for inflation and population growth. That is what the rest of us are talking about when we say "an entire new pie".

As for the rest, you seem to be deliberately (and needlessly) nitpicky and argumentative, and I'm done with this conversation.

Post reply on HN