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

Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

cardsagainsthumanityredistributesyourwealth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 200 posts

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#171

Post by geofft »

jquery wrote: post #53
geofft wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If charity works great, why doesn't government-mandated charity work even better? There are a lot of things, like civil defense and firefighting and road building, that historically started working more reliably when they became government-run instead of depending on volunteers or private industry. What makes charity different?

Because socialism has been proven to fail, over and over and over. Roads are not socialism. Roads have not destroyed societies like Venezuela or Cuba. Socialism is when the government decides private property is illegitimate and it fails every time it’s tried. Some amount of socialism may not kill the host but it’s a thing to be feared and wielded carefully not lauded.

And US military intervention, economic sanctions, etc. in Venezuela and Cuba aren't to blame at all, I guess?

The US has spent trillions of dollars over the years trying to convince everyone that socialism can't work by making sure it doesn't work. It seems absolutely unscientific to ignore that.

In any case, I am not asking about the abolition of private property, just about government-mandated charity at scale. Let's say you get a marginal tax of 100% on salaries over $200K, and on wealth over $10M. That's more private property than most Americans will ever have in their life. Is tbat proven to fail? Where and how?

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#172

Post by geofft »

throwawaycloud wrote: post #65
mberning wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they have a budget for that kind of stuff. Maybe they don't. Based on personal experience growing up in actual poverty I would bet most do not. I certainly didn't. And neither did most of the people in my life. It's really no different than buying smokes by the pack or 20oz sodas at the gas station. Many people can easily come up with the money to buy these things, even people that are perpetually "broke". But…

Ever make chicken? 3lbs of chicken is $15 alone ($3.59/lb x 4 lbs, about 1lb of liquid). That's not a lot of food. Oh, hmm.. How about hamburger then? Same story. $1k would absolutely be a lifechanger. I'd be able to go get my colonoscopy that I desperately need, or be able to at least go to a therapist to help get over my fear of needles in preparation for that. You bet I'll drop $15 on CAH. I'm not going to deny my…

Can you send me an email with a way to get money to you (Square Cash, address for a check, etc.)?

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#173

Post by jnbiche »

Jarwain wrote: post #166
jnbiche wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For very poor people, just having more money can often make a huge difference in their lives: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/08/23/214210692/the-... There's actually a mounting volume of convincing evidence that cash grants to poor people are much more effective than random charity programs of equivalent value. Because poor people often know what they need more than some paper pusher in a faraway city.

I wonder whether there is a difference in attitudes or money usage for poor people in Kenya or other developing nations, vs those who are poor in developed nations like the US. Although you did say 'very' poor people, this was the thought that popped into my mind.

I wonder the same thing. I think there is a study being done now in the US on cash grants, so there may be some data. But not nearly as much as there is from Africa.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#174

Post by jnbiche »

harryh wrote: post #133
jnbiche wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To fix poverty among the poor, you'll have to do a whole lot more than just convince them to eat healthy: 1) Healthy food where I live is much more expensive than unhealthy food. I get that in SF and NYC, it's possible to buy such food at Asian grocers for a reasonable cost, but not everyone is fortunate enough to have an Asian grocer on their corner. So they'll need more money. 2) On a related note, many poor neighb…

Re #2: You are talking about so called food deserts. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of this hypothesis. Here is a good academic article that is representative: http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2015/10/26/if-you-build-it-th...

Yeah, in that article they basically say it's likely one factor among many, which is exactly what I'm saying.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#175

Post by jnbiche »

harryh wrote: post #129
jnbiche wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To fix poverty among the poor, you'll have to do a whole lot more than just convince them to eat healthy: 1) Healthy food where I live is much more expensive than unhealthy food. I get that in SF and NYC, it's possible to buy such food at Asian grocers for a reasonable cost, but not everyone is fortunate enough to have an Asian grocer on their corner. So they'll need more money. 2) On a related note, many poor neighb…

Re #4: 96.6% of US households below the poverty level have a working stove. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/censu...

A lot of people living in subsidized housing will have a stove, because Section 8 requires it from landlords. However, I know a lot of people who may be slightly above the poverty line who don't have a working stove. That included me for a while.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#176

Post by edanm »

FLGMwt wrote: post #121
lobotryas wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>objectively a Good Thing Could you please defend this assertion? They themselves admit that their redistribution method is flawed (see the FAQ). I see this as an empty publicity stunt and something that doesn't help in the least.

Happy to! First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets. I think most businesses would have taken a flexible $100k USD and spent it on marketing or expansion or something. The fact that this was distributed freely to people who self-identified as having use of it is good . Second, flawed/unfair/biased/imperfect does not mean that something can't have net…

You're making a few assumptions that I disagree with.

'First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets.'

Well, I think most economists will tell you that almost every non-forced transaction in a consumeristic market is a win-win. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen! You have $x, but you want to have whatever I'm selling more than you want to have those $x, therefore we make the trade. I, alternatively, prefer the money. If there's no win-win here, then the transaction wouldn't happen in the first place.

"This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need". Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for."

That's sincerely very nice of them. It really is. They're giving up some of their own hard-earned money in order to give to others, and I applaud them for it.

However, don't give up on all corporations just yet. Corporations are in a very different position, at least large, public ones, because they're not wholly owned by a few people who can decide to give some of their money to charity. They're owned by huge numbers of shareholders. (A lot of which are members of the public, investing through pensions funds and the like).

Who exactly should be making the decision to e.g. donate money to charity, instead of making more money? The individual shareholders are completely free to do this with their own money, and many do - but why should the company itself do it? If I were a shareholder, I'd want the company to mostly maximize profit, then decide in private how I'd like to donate to charity. For many reasons, not least of which is that I'd probably donate to GiveWell or something similar, rather than to a few random people who happen to like CAH.

Anyway, I really can't say it better than Milton Friedman, so if you're interested, I suggest you read his words on the subjcet: https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/f...

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#177

Post by robbiep »

throwawaycloud wrote: post #149
robbiep wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, Doctor here. Go to a doctor immediately. There is no way that old blood mixed with stool is from a stomach ulcer. In fact, that’s not how it works anyway (upper gastrointestinal bleeds are modified by stomach acid and enzymes and have a characteristic effect on stool that we call Malena). You may have one of many different things, the most serious of which is, as you fear, a cancer, but the differentials run thro…

You have no idea how much I want to, but $1k for a colonoscopy is wildly optimistic. It's probably going to be $3k or $4k minimum. I make $750 bimonthly, which barely pays the rent. My roommate pays the rest of our living expenses. There's $1,800 in the bank. What do I do? Show up and say "There's no way I can ever pay for this, but see me anyway"? I literally have no idea, and I'd feel like a complete scumbag for do…

More than happy to receive an email from you and take a consult. The large strokes of your history you’ve already given and whilst there is a lot of other information that would be useful for general picture (age, sex, family history particularly as it relates to bowel/GI issues, specifics of timing and actual dietary changes etc) it doesn’t overly change the story which is that further investigation is highly warranted and necessary for a definitive diagnosis to occur (even if underlying pathology is benign). Sorry I can’t help further, the unfairness of the US health system is beyond my comprehension

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#178

Post by nbanks »

FLGMwt wrote: post #31

Oh hey, on top of the prevalent skepticism and detractions in the current discussion, I'll just throw out that, on its own, this is objectively a Good Thing. I won't dismiss the fact that this is good PR for CAH, but it is still morally-motivated positive impact for some fixed number of people. A company took some profit they had and exceptionally distributed to some of their less fortunate customers. Don't immediate…

This is definitely a good thing, especially when it's juxtaposed with Cards Against Humanity's Holiday Hole last year. It's as if they're not really against humanity after all. I wonder which publicity stunt is better for the company.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#179

Post by harryh »

jnbiche wrote: post #174
harryh wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re #2: You are talking about so called food deserts. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of this hypothesis. Here is a good academic article that is representative: http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2015/10/26/if-you-build-it-th...

Yeah, in that article they basically say it's likely one factor among many, which is exactly what I'm saying.

They say that it is a very minor factor.

Re: Cards Against Humanity Redistributes Your Wealth

#180

Post by harryh »

jnbiche wrote: post #175
harryh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re #4: 96.6% of US households below the poverty level have a working stove. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/censu...

A lot of people living in subsidized housing will have a stove, because Section 8 requires it from landlords. However, I know a lot of people who may be slightly above the poverty line who don't have a working stove. That included me for a while.

It would be very unusual for access to an appliance to decrease as income rises. Do you have any data to support that claim beyond your individual experience?
Post reply on HN