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

Inequality Without Class

dissentmagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 160 posts

Re: Inequality Without Class

#21

Post by schmidtleonard »

m463 wrote: post #11
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…

> reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people I think you're right, but not in that way. Tesla charged wealthy people a lot for the original tesla roadster. Then they took what they learned and charged wealthy people a lot for a better car, the original model S. Then the X. He continued reaching into the pockets of wealthy people for further updates to the model S/X, updating the motor, then motors. Now…

If you want to understand the problems, spend less time worrying about the parts of the economy where over time you pay less and get more, and spend more time worrying about the parts of the economy where over time you pay more and get less. That's where it's broken. Health care, housing, education.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#22

Post by dventimi »

Manuel_D wrote: post #18
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…

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.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#23

Post by Manuel_D »

dventimi wrote: post #19
roenxi wrote: post #2

The focus on inequality is a massive mistake. The focus needs to be on absolute living standards. I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires. In point fact, I don't see how that second world is better for anyone. Literally nobody is better off in that scenario even if inequality has dropped. There is no reason to believe…

I couldn't agree less. Wealth depends on poverty because poverty creates wealth. You'll never get 10x Musk's without creating homeless people. We compete with each other for resources using wealth and power, which at the highest levels are the same.

No, poverty does not create wealth. The wealthiest people tend to come from affluent countries with low poverty. This comment is prototypical of a zero-sum mindset.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#24

Post by brigadier132 »

dventimi wrote: post #19
roenxi wrote: post #2

The focus on inequality is a massive mistake. The focus needs to be on absolute living standards. I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires. In point fact, I don't see how that second world is better for anyone. Literally nobody is better off in that scenario even if inequality has dropped. There is no reason to believe…

I couldn't agree less. Wealth depends on poverty because poverty creates wealth. You'll never get 10x Musk's without creating homeless people. We compete with each other for resources using wealth and power, which at the highest levels are the same.

> Wealth depends on poverty because poverty creates wealth

This is circular reasoning and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics and what wealth even is.

> You'll never get 10x Musk's without creating homeless people

This is stated without evidence.

> We compete with each other for resources using wealth and power

The classic 0 sum theory of economics. It's a good thing economics isn't actually 0 sum because with more than 10x population growth since the 1700s we'd be fighting over loaves of bread.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#25

Post by swaginator »

m463 wrote: post #11
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…

> reaching your hands deep into the pockets of other people I think you're right, but not in that way. Tesla charged wealthy people a lot for the original tesla roadster. Then they took what they learned and charged wealthy people a lot for a better car, the original model S. Then the X. He continued reaching into the pockets of wealthy people for further updates to the model S/X, updating the motor, then motors. Now…

> He continued reaching into the pockets of wealthy people

I'd argue he used subsidies from the government, both direct and indirect.

Buyers get a tax credit for electric cars. SolarCity received hundreds of millions of dollars in direct grants from different state governments, I believe this all went to Tesla.

Tesla's high curb weight causes more damage to roads. Tesla's lack of unionization means that it relies on mistreatment of workers to get its cars made.

There are a lot of examples of Musk taking money both directly and indirectly from those who are not in his customer base. I won't argue whether or not Tesla has been a net benefit or not for the USA, but the result of this is that Musk can point to his company's success and marketing to pump the share price-- and he is now attempting to dump it.

The sneaky thing about inequality is that a lot of the direct costs are externalized. Musk can still appear "self-made" when he has externalized so many of his costs to the taxpayer and his workers.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#26

Post by Manuel_D »

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.

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 you had to sit for a portrait painter. After practical photography was developed, portraits became much more accessible. I could go on.

Humanity is increasing the pool of goods and services in absolute terms all the time.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#27

Post by cool_dude85 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #18
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…

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's true the the economy is not a zero-sum game, but it's also true that many aspects are zero-sum. Maybe some portion of Zuck's wealth does genuinely come from his innovations, and otherwise wouldn't exist. But I think it would be hard to argue that all of it is - if he had been hit by a car his first day at Harvard, maybe MySpace Tom or friendster or the Winklevoss guys would be stinking rich.

So, the question is, how much of his wealth did he actually create versus simply grab from others? When it comes to MySpace Tom the answer isn't super important, but it is very important for the masses of poor people who make up the vast majority of the planet.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#28

Post by throwaway22032 »

roenxi wrote: post #2

The focus on inequality is a massive mistake. The focus needs to be on absolute living standards. I would rather live in a world with a 10x Musk and no homeless people than a more equal world like the current one but with no billionaires. In point fact, I don't see how that second world is better for anyone. Literally nobody is better off in that scenario even if inequality has dropped. There is no reason to believe…

I agree with you for what it's worth. I'd rather live in a world in which I can dream my dreams than one in which Soviet Cube #77385 and a dingy metro are and will always be my life.

Playing devil's advocate though, I'm not sure that most people are really that bothered about billionaires, to me it's always felt like a stereotypical lefty trust fund kid thing.

Most of the issues surrounding inequality seem to come about with things like e.g. transit vs driving, big house vs apartment, good diet vs bad diet, etc.

Basically just living next door to people that you* will never be, because I'm not sure that realistically we can give everyone a house on an acre with two cars on the drive.

you*: Not literally you or any individual, it's not that hard to make it out of poverty, but collectively not everyone can/will.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#29

Post by cool_dude85 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #26
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.

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…

Buddy. Are you really trying to say that there can exist infinite goods and services in a finite universe? Growing is not the same as infinite.

Re: Inequality Without Class

#30

Post by Manuel_D »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #27
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's true the the economy is not a zero-sum game, but it's also true that many aspects are zero-sum. Maybe some portion of Zuck's wealth does genuinely come from his innovations, and otherwise wouldn't exist. But I think it would be hard to argue that all of it is - if he had been hit by a car his first day at Harvard, maybe MySpace Tom or friendster or the Winklevoss guys would be stinking rich. So, the question is,…

If a company creates a better, or cheaper, or otherwise superior product and garners more sales than it's competitors is it "grabbing from others"? If so, then consumers benefit when companies do their best improve or invent new goods and services in their quest to "grab from others".

Also, I'm not sure why the hypothetical situation of what would happen if Zuckerberg hadn't founded Facebook would be particularly relevant to people in poverty. If MySpace became the most popular social networking company rather than Facebook, how would the poor be in a different situation?

Post reply on HN