4 ms·

No. Those with an actual stake in the decisions deserve more of a voice in it than those who would only vote themselves a full stomach. The US is explicitly des

No. Those with an actual stake in the decisions deserve more of a voice in it than those who would only vote themselves a full stomach. The US is explicitly designed that those who are successful in the past (have money) have more of a voice than those who have failed (haven't money).

andrewstuart2 11y ago
Not having money is most certainly not a sign that you've failed. Having money is also most certainly not a sign that you've been successful. Generational wealth and poverty are real. By your measure, the current Kardashian generation would be considered among the best and brightest in America. Wealth is only a goal for some people, and I'd argue that the best and brightest are more likely to perceive that maybe a rat race to the top isn't the best use of their limited time on earth.
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  Generational wealth is real. So is generational knowledge. My father taught me a large part of what I know. Why deny those who have inherent advantages from taking advantage of such? Oh, right, because you believe in a Harrison Bergeron-esque future in which everyone with talent is handicapped til they are at the level of the lowest retard. I wish you all deserved success with that.
  - dang 11y ago
    > Oh, right, because you believe in a Harrison Bergeron-esque future in which everyone with talent is handicapped til they are at the level of the lowest retard. This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil and unsubstantive. We ban accounts that do this. Please read the guidelines and follow them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
neolefty 11y ago
First, if success is defined by profit, then where do advocacy for justice, safety, and protecting the commons fit in? They are just as important for government to hear about as profit-generating business interests. Second, that argument sounds like Laissez-Faire economics, where those who succeed are enabled to succeed more. In practice, it leads to imbalances and winner-take-all problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#Critiques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#Critiques On the other hand, excessive regulation can suffocate innovation. So you need a balance. The debate comes when you try to figure out what the balance should be. In academia, that balance includes disclosure, peer-review, and openness. It's far from perfect, but we're working on it. But this article is mostly about government and policy that is informed by research, and the serious imbalances, information asymmetries, and lack of voice of non-business interests.
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  Justice, Safety, and protecting the commons are perfectly satisfied by the interests of the wealthy. The absolute first thing that wealth wants is safety and order, and central to that is a well-functioning police force. Unless wealth has been entirely monopolized, that will involve a coalition of monied interests. We're not quite at the point of a private police force, though we're close, due to the raging ineffectiveness that BLM and similar movements are pushing for.
jbapple 11y ago
1. This comment does not at all address the actual article, which includes a decision in which individual investors and the mutual fund companies that sell them products both have "an actual stake", and yet only one of these has the organizational infrastructure to commission a study that aims to 2. . . . "vote[s] themselves a full stomach" by preventing regulation requiring them to act in the best interests of the people who they are giving financial advice to. 3. This comment then notes that the US is "explicitly designed" so that those with more money have more power. I suppose this historical note is meant to convince the reader that this is a good thing, but that seems pretty bizarre.

andrewstuart2 11y ago

Not having money is most certainly not a sign that you've failed. Having money is also most certainly not a sign that you've been successful. Generational wealth and poverty are real. By your measure, the current Kardashian generation would be considered among the best and brightest in America. Wealth is only a goal for some people, and I'd argue that the best and brightest are more likely to perceive that maybe a rat race to the top isn't the best use of their limited time on earth.

GauntletWizard 11y ago
Generational wealth is real. So is generational knowledge. My father taught me a large part of what I know. Why deny those who have inherent advantages from taking advantage of such? Oh, right, because you believe in a Harrison Bergeron-esque future in which everyone with talent is handicapped til they are at the level of the lowest retard. I wish you all deserved success with that.
- dang 11y ago
  > Oh, right, because you believe in a Harrison Bergeron-esque future in which everyone with talent is handicapped til they are at the level of the lowest retard. This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil and unsubstantive. We ban accounts that do this. Please read the guidelines and follow them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

neolefty 11y ago

First, if success is defined by profit, then where do advocacy for justice, safety, and protecting the commons fit in? They are just as important for government to hear about as profit-generating business interests. Second, that argument sounds like Laissez-Faire economics, where those who succeed are enabled to succeed more. In practice, it leads to imbalances and winner-take-all problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#Critiques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#Critiques On the other hand, excessive regulation can suffocate innovation. So you need a balance. The debate comes when you try to figure out what the balance should be. In academia, that balance includes disclosure, peer-review, and openness. It's far from perfect, but we're working on it. But this article is mostly about government and policy that is informed by research, and the serious imbalances, information asymmetries, and lack of voice of non-business interests.

GauntletWizard 11y ago
Justice, Safety, and protecting the commons are perfectly satisfied by the interests of the wealthy. The absolute first thing that wealth wants is safety and order, and central to that is a well-functioning police force. Unless wealth has been entirely monopolized, that will involve a coalition of monied interests. We're not quite at the point of a private police force, though we're close, due to the raging ineffectiveness that BLM and similar movements are pushing for.

jbapple 11y ago

1. This comment does not at all address the actual article, which includes a decision in which individual investors and the mutual fund companies that sell them products both have "an actual stake", and yet only one of these has the organizational infrastructure to commission a study that aims to 2. . . . "vote[s] themselves a full stomach" by preventing regulation requiring them to act in the best interests of the people who they are giving financial advice to. 3. This comment then notes that the US is "explicitly designed" so that those with more money have more power. I suppose this historical note is meant to convince the reader that this is a good thing, but that seems pretty bizarre.