Live data from Hacker News

The Angry Rich

nytimes.com

81–82 of 82 posts

Re: The Angry Rich

#81
post #79
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these structures of society that make it possible for people to succeed? Society isn't some uniform, monolithic thing that exists in own right, that we either choose to participate in or not. Society is the product of actual relationships among real people. They don't depend upon external institutions as a precondition of cooperating toward mutual benefit, but establish those institutions as a consequence of…

What are these structures of society that make it possible for people to succeed? How about enforcement of contracts, roads, and currency, to name the first three that came to mind? But every tax, regulation, divisive political program, and every faction seeking to impose its narrow agenda on everyone at once just have the effect of raising the stakes of participating in society. They give people more to lose and mor…

Roads and currency? I suppose we could get into a detailed conversation about how well decentralized, voluntary forms of organization could create and sustain these - I'd suggest that they could, and often do - but for the sake of argument, I'll concede the point. Roads are slabs of pavement in the ground; currency are tokens used as a means of exchange. These are pretty mundane things, hardly the wellspring of society, and I do hope you'd agree that roads, currency, and other similar goods are consequences of, and not prerequisites for, a well-functioning society.

The question of contract enforcement is more interesting. I would entirely agree that law is a necessary mechanism, without which the few 'bad apples' in society would spoil the rest. But I think it's important to note that if breaches of contract - that is, failure of people to maintain their voluntary arrangements in good faith - were the general case rather than outliers, no amount of law could prevent society from failing. The judicial process is a tool we can use as a fallback solution to protect those arrangements we freely create with others. But it should be clearly distinguished from the regulatory mentality which seeks to prescriptively define those relationships in advance, and compel adherence to a set of prepackaged social models without specific regard to the preferences and expectations of the individuals in each case. The regulatory model designs the overarching system around the outlier failure conditions rather than permitting the flexibility that optimizes the general case. Law is appropriately the brake pedal, not the gas.

I'd disagree with your perceptions of America as being particularly disconnected and paranoid - Americans are stereotypically confident and optimistic - although I think that individualism and cultural pluralism in America might often lead to more paranoia about social policies that seek universal solutions to complex problems. There may be a reason why the social democratic model seems to work most effectively in the cultures where 'Jante law' is most evident.

Re: The Angry Rich

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again, right or wrong, that is how the rich view the situation when they are facing increased taxes and dilution of their wealth through inflation. Whether you agree with it or not, it's not hard to understand. Statistically, the rich are getting richer. The middle class are the ones who should be angry as they are the demographic who have suffered the most economically in recent decades. This political cartoon nice…

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer... but only in relative terms. In absolute terms, we're all getting richer. It's pretty hard to argue that the lower classes are getting poorer when you compare what we had 50 or 100 years ago with what we have now: our houses are bigger, they have plumbing and electricity, they're filled with God knows how many gadgets and appliances, cars outnumber people,…

Not true. Income in the bottom 3 quartiles has remained constant or fallen slightly (adjusted for inflation) since the 1970s. We have better tech, but we have also had the rich getting much much richer.
Post reply on HN