Inequality Without Class • Hacker News Board

Re: Inequality Without Class

#121

Post by dventimi » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 4:57 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #119

Manuel_D wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, goods and services are not finite. This is just patently false. How many automobiles existed in 1800? How many jey liners existed in 1900? How many smartphones existed in 1950? The pool of goods grows in absolute terms. It's not just goods, services too grow in absolute terms. We invented radio in 1900 (ish) and introduced a wholly novel set of services. Before photography, in order to get one's likeness recorded…

> No, goods and services are not finite Yes, they are. > Humanity is increasing the pool of goods and services in absolute terms all the time. The ever-increasing amount is still finite, at any given time and even aggregated over the entire history from the evolution of humanity to its inevitable extinction.

The magical thinking in this thread is breathtaking to behold.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#122

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 5:29 PM UTC

dventimi wrote: post #22

Manuel_D wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of zero-sum thinking - then notion that accumulation of wealth necessarily means it must have been taken from others - is extremely detrimental to society.

It is zero sum: there are finite goods and services in the world, and we're all competing for them. There are losers and winners. "That's just zero sum thinking" has been the smokescreen for gullible people for at least fifty years.

> It is zero sum: there are finite goods and services in the world, and we're all competing for them.

Zero-sum (or fixed-sum, since zero-sum strictly means the aggregate quantity is not only fixed and finite but actually zero) doesn't just mean the total is finite (which is obviously correct), it means that output is fixed and the choices made only affect distribution, not the quantity of goods and services that are produced and made available. This is not the case.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#123

Post by Manuel_D » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 5:30 PM UTC

dventimi wrote: post #120

Manuel_D wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LOL on at least two separate occasions my "opponent" has said that wealth is finite Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow?

> Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." That's a pretty important qualifier. > Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow? That's two questions. Obviously, any one of us exists for a finite interval of time, that's for sure. Let's call that "a lifetime." Does technological innovation occur, does the world's productive output increase, and do av…

> If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead?

I'd expect them to be happier when their material conditions are improved.

And how is that accomplished? Under a zero-sum mindset, this requires taking wealth from other people. So the answer is to raid and conquer neighboring countries and enslave their people. The pie is of a fixed size, so the only way to increase your lot is to reduce someone else's. This was true for much of human history, until the industrial revolution.

Fortunately, though, we live in the 21st century. We live in a time where material conditions are rising faster than at any point in human history. Much of this comes down to automation, and better energy capture. My responsibility is would be to invest in a more productive economy to raise living standards across the board. Make the pie bigger. This does not take a long time, world GDP per-capita more than doubled in the span on one lifetime: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-of-the-human-sp...

Again, your statements are just factually wrong. Global average living standards have increased substantially, over the course of one person's lifetime. The growth is not "in the future, long after we're all dead". The average 70 year old has almost certainly seen drastic improvements over the span of their life.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#124

Post by dventimi » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 7:11 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #123

dventimi wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only with the qualifier of, "at one instant in time." That's a pretty important qualifier. > Now answer this question: in the real world, are we frozen at one instant in time? Or does time flow? That's two questions. Obviously, any one of us exists for a finite interval of time, that's for sure. Let's call that "a lifetime." Does technological innovation occur, does the world's productive output increase, and do av…

> If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead? I'd expect them to be happier when their material conditions are improved. And how is that accomplished? Under a zero-sum mindset, this requires taking weal…

>> If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead?

> I'd expect them to be happier when their material conditions are improved.

You didn't answer the question I asked. I mean, you're not obliged to answer any questions, but for the record, you didn't answer this one. Perhaps your justification for not answering it is something like "false premise": perhaps you believe that a person's material conditions will necessarily improve as time progresses and overall wealth increases, such that they won't need you to explain to them that they're better off because they'll be able to see it with their own eyes. If that's your belief then I don't even need to offer my counterargument because surely you must already know it by now, I've already made it enough times. But, maybe I'll give you a little hint anyway.

> world GDP per-capita more than doubled in the span on one lifetime

Hint: "per-capita" is an average, which means you're already on shaky ground

> Again, your statements are just factually wrong. Global average living standards have increased

How can my statement about "global average living standards" be wrong when I never made a statement about "global average living standards"?

> The average 70 year old has almost certainly seen drastic improvements over the span of their life.

I assume that by "average 70 year old" what you really mean is "typical 70 year old" as in "representative 70 year old" but that still demands clarification. Where does this typical, representative 70 year old live? What percentage of the world's population do they represent? However many people that is, what about the people left over, the one's whose lives are not represented by this typical 70 year old? How have their living standards changed, if at all? These are really just rhetorical questions to try to get you to think. Don't feel the need to try to answer them.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#125

Post by MisterBastahrd » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 7:44 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #12

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get to be Musk level without reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people and taking it for yourself. All you have to do is look at the propaganda surrounding "PPP loans" versus the money given out to stretch people's paychecks during the pandemic. Most businesses weren't affected in any substantial way, but governments still gave away trillions, and the companies got to keep the money. Meanwhi…

> You don't get to be Musk level without reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people and taking it for yourself. There was no "reaching into others pocket". It's a luxury car, not a fire extinguisher being sold to a guy on fire. People reached into their own pocket and handed him cash. Voluntarily. For something they wanted . Then Elon sold off pieces of his company to people who reached into their pock…

Musk has made off with generational wealth just off of government subsidies alone. Government subsidies for businesses are just welfare for the rich.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#126

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 7:45 PM UTC

dventimi wrote: post #124

Manuel_D wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead? I'd expect them to be happier when their material conditions are improved. And how is that accomplished? Under a zero-sum mindset, this requires taking weal…

>> If a person alive now, today, in the present, is unhappy because they have a meager share of the world's wealth, would you expect them to become happy once you've explained to them that the world's wealth will be larger in the future, long after we're all dead? > I'd expect them to be happier when their material conditions are improved. You didn't answer the question I asked. I mean, you're not obliged to answer a…

[deleted]

Re: Inequality Without Class

#127

Post by dventimi » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 8:08 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #122

dventimi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is zero sum: there are finite goods and services in the world, and we're all competing for them. There are losers and winners. "That's just zero sum thinking" has been the smokescreen for gullible people for at least fifty years.

> It is zero sum: there are finite goods and services in the world, and we're all competing for them. Zero-sum (or fixed-sum, since zero-sum strictly means the aggregate quantity is not only fixed and finite but actually zero) doesn't just mean the total is finite (which is obviously correct), it means that output is fixed and the choices made only affect distribution, not the quantity of goods and services that are…

Yeah but the material conditions of an individual's life are determined by the goods and services they have, not by the total amount of goods and services that exist in the world. Moreover, certain material conditions--safety from harm, freedom of expression, and the political power to maintain those things--absolutely do not increase in some global sense the way that economic output does. Consequently, it's the distribution of wealth that determines the quality of an individual's life, and that's what concerns me.

So no, I don't give a fig if "total wealth" whatever that is is somehow going up in aggregate, not if it's not being shared more uniformly.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#128

Post by Manuel_D » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 8:24 PM UTC

dventimi wrote: post #79

Manuel_D wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm glad we finally agree that wealth is finite. Wrong, wealth is not finite and it can be - and is - increased. Yes, the amount of wealth at Monday, 03-Jun-24 04:12:33 UTC is going to be finite, because that's a fixed point in time . This is just a pointless tangent, because in our world time is not frozen. In our reality, where time flows, wealth is not finite and is indeed grown in absolute terms. > That's cold…

>>> At any given time are there, or are there not, finite goods and services? >> At one given instant sure > Wrong, wealth is not finite Perhaps you could make up your mind. > Yes, people who lived in preindustrial societies saw more or less fixed living standards for generations. But fortunately for us, we live in one of the most economically dynamic points of in all of human history [1]. Your statement does ring tr…

At any one given instant in time, the planets have just one position around the sun. Does that mean orbital paths are a lie?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at any one point in time is fixed. At a particular instant in time, there is an exact number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. And that number is fixed and doesn't change, unless you pick a different timestamp. Does that mean we can just keep burning fossil fuels and the amount of carbon dioxide doesn't change?

No, because time isn't frozen. We don't live in a world where time is fixed. Seriously, I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#129

Post by slothtrop » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 8:47 PM UTC

dventimi wrote: post #114

slothtrop wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poorest countries trade the least with the rest of the world.

Even if that were true, which I'm absolutely not willing to accept without evidence, trade is not the only way that wealthy nations impoverish poor nations. There are others: war, political instability, environmental degradation, etc.

So don't accept it, I'm not going to run around doing simple searches for you.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#130

Post by dventimi » Mon, Jun 03, 2024, 9:52 PM UTC

slothtrop wrote: post #129

dventimi wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that were true, which I'm absolutely not willing to accept without evidence, trade is not the only way that wealthy nations impoverish poor nations. There are others: war, political instability, environmental degradation, etc.

So don't accept it, I'm not going to run around doing simple searches for you.

"Searches"? Why would you have to search for evidence you already have in your possession, which surely must be the case? I mean, it's not like you would dream up a claim without evidence, is it?