6 ms·

Does anyone else feel like it's the government's responsibility to help all the needy sections of the society, and billionaires intervening only abets and condo

Does anyone else feel like it's the government's responsibility to help all the needy sections of the society, and billionaires intervening only abets and condones all the deliberate/unintentional mistakes of the former, and lets them escape it?

msvan 11y ago
Volunteering and donations are a much bigger thing in the US than in Sweden. Here we just tax everybody more, and that mostly takes the place of benevolent billionare philanthropists.
- humility 11y ago
  General masses in Sweden are way better off than those in the US, I'd call that a better approach!
  - mkaziz 11y ago
    Correlation != Causation!
  - adventured 11y ago
    I wouldn't. The top 50% of Americans are better off than the top 50% of people in Sweden. That's 160 million people doing better than Sweden, I call that an extraordinary success. The bottom 1/3 are better off in Sweden than in America however, not much debate on that. Swedes in America also do better than Swedes in Sweden. There is greater opportunity for success in America than there is in Sweden as well. The US has a far greater diversity of culture overall. The US economy is far richer, 45% of all global wealth is concentrated in just 4.6% of the world's population. US universities are far superior to Sweden's. The Swedish household debt to income ratio is far worse than America's, at twice the rate of the US household levels. They've been taking on debt far beyond their means to fake some of that standard of living. Some masses of people are better off in Sweden, some are not. Sweden's unemployment rate is higher than the US. Their system was also a disaster for decades before they launched numerous reforms of the prior formulation of their welfare state, improving its overall free market friendliness.
    - jbapple 11y ago
      > The top 50% of Americans are better off than the top 50% of people in Sweden. That's 160 million people doing better than Sweden, I call that an extraordinary success. Are you suggesting the median American is wealthier than the wealthiest Swede?
      - adventured 11y ago
        The top 50% specifically would not be the median at all. The net median wealth per adult is higher in America than in Sweden however. That number was roughly equal as of 2013, since then US real estate and equities have gone up significantly. US median wealth tends to be heavily influenced particularly by real estate (with US real estate values nearly back to the all-time highs). I'm suggesting the top 50% in America are better of than the top 50% in Sweden. Not that the median is better in America. In nearly every respect. Access to culture. Economic opportunities. University opportunities. The types of businesses you can build. The variety of industries and jobs you have access to. The sheer scale of things you can work on or have access to economically or otherwise. The research and innovation, the scale of the scientific output you can be part of. The cultural output you can tap into or contribute to that will be consumed in pretty much every corner of the globe. And on it goes. Sweden does amazingly well for 7 or 8 million people. America does amazingly well for ~160 million people. Sweden isn't going to scale - their population has increased by 2 million in 55 years or so (they can't scale much for obvious reasons). I consider America's accomplishment, that it has benefited so many more people to such a high degree, to be drastically more impressive. In the US, the top 50% are better off than Europe's top 50%, and the bottom 50% in the US are also better off than Europe's bottom 50% (see: Eastern Europe).
        jbapple 11y ago
        > I'm suggesting the top 50% in America are better of than the top 50% in Sweden. I'm asking you what that sentence means. Comparing groups is a tricky business. The richest half of Americans are better off in total? In the mean? In the median? Does it mean that the Pth percentile American is richer than the Pth percentile Swede, for all P>50? I'm ignoring, for the moment, the ambiguity in which Americans are the "top" ones and what if means to be "better off". (wealth? income? education? lifespan? self-reported happiness?) Maybe it would help if you point to some actual numbers by some social scientists that back up your claim.
treerock 11y ago
No. The assumption that government should fix everything is selfish and lazy. It absolves us of personal responsibility, and gives us someone to blame when things go wrong. I'd feel sorry for the politicians, except they do more than anyone to perpetuate this.
- kaonashi 11y ago
  The notion that individuals should fix everything is a cop-out and woefully insufficient.
  - treerock 11y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of groups that can take on the responsibilities that government now assume.
    - dexterdog 11y ago
      And just about all of them (even Komen) do it more efficiently.
    - kaonashi 11y ago
      I should have written: the notion that individuals should fund everything is a cop-out and woefully insufficient.
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      What if voters choose to delegate that responsibility to government, should they be prevented from doing so?
- smtddr 11y ago
  >>The assumption that government should fix everything is selfish and lazy. It absolves us of personal responsibility. It's also unreasonable to think everyone that's in a difficult situation got there by their own mistakes and have the ability to get out without help.
smtddr 11y ago
Yes and no. The government is too bird's-eye-view to understand the details of different communities. I do think, however, the government should have some kind connection with a group of people in each state to get a status on things. And each state should have groups in different communities representing it to report up to the state-level group. I feel like USA is already kinda designed that way, but something is making it not work... at least, it's not working for the poor.
arbitrage314 11y ago
I do think that, in general, charity is very reactive. Proactive approaches (e.g., education) are almost always better and more efficient.
notahacker 11y ago
Surely both can and should do their bit. Governments have the scale and power to run systemwide education, healthcare and crime reduction programmes; wealthy entrepreneurs have the freedom to try experimental schemes or artistic programmes that many people think sound like a waste of money.
ahallock 11y ago
So you'd rather have a middleman coercively distribute funds or amass more debt, and take some of the funds in overhead, rather than be able to direct your money where it's deserved, especially in an age when you can use the internet to set up payments and research deserving institutions? If you abdicate responsibility -- the poor are some distant entity's problem -- you are not being virtuous. By the way, it's not ONLY billionaires that can help with the needy. Your time is also valuable--for example, you could visit some lonely elderly people in a nursing home. If you pay it forward, people will help you out when you're in need. Your friends and family become your "social safety net."

msvan 11y ago

Volunteering and donations are a much bigger thing in the US than in Sweden. Here we just tax everybody more, and that mostly takes the place of benevolent billionare philanthropists.

humility 11y ago
General masses in Sweden are way better off than those in the US, I'd call that a better approach!
- mkaziz 11y ago
  Correlation != Causation!
- adventured 11y ago
  I wouldn't. The top 50% of Americans are better off than the top 50% of people in Sweden. That's 160 million people doing better than Sweden, I call that an extraordinary success. The bottom 1/3 are better off in Sweden than in America however, not much debate on that. Swedes in America also do better than Swedes in Sweden. There is greater opportunity for success in America than there is in Sweden as well. The US has a far greater diversity of culture overall. The US economy is far richer, 45% of all global wealth is concentrated in just 4.6% of the world's population. US universities are far superior to Sweden's. The Swedish household debt to income ratio is far worse than America's, at twice the rate of the US household levels. They've been taking on debt far beyond their means to fake some of that standard of living. Some masses of people are better off in Sweden, some are not. Sweden's unemployment rate is higher than the US. Their system was also a disaster for decades before they launched numerous reforms of the prior formulation of their welfare state, improving its overall free market friendliness.
  - jbapple 11y ago
    > The top 50% of Americans are better off than the top 50% of people in Sweden. That's 160 million people doing better than Sweden, I call that an extraordinary success. Are you suggesting the median American is wealthier than the wealthiest Swede?
    - adventured 11y ago
      The top 50% specifically would not be the median at all. The net median wealth per adult is higher in America than in Sweden however. That number was roughly equal as of 2013, since then US real estate and equities have gone up significantly. US median wealth tends to be heavily influenced particularly by real estate (with US real estate values nearly back to the all-time highs). I'm suggesting the top 50% in America are better of than the top 50% in Sweden. Not that the median is better in America. In nearly every respect. Access to culture. Economic opportunities. University opportunities. The types of businesses you can build. The variety of industries and jobs you have access to. The sheer scale of things you can work on or have access to economically or otherwise. The research and innovation, the scale of the scientific output you can be part of. The cultural output you can tap into or contribute to that will be consumed in pretty much every corner of the globe. And on it goes. Sweden does amazingly well for 7 or 8 million people. America does amazingly well for ~160 million people. Sweden isn't going to scale - their population has increased by 2 million in 55 years or so (they can't scale much for obvious reasons). I consider America's accomplishment, that it has benefited so many more people to such a high degree, to be drastically more impressive. In the US, the top 50% are better off than Europe's top 50%, and the bottom 50% in the US are also better off than Europe's bottom 50% (see: Eastern Europe).
      - jbapple 11y ago
        > I'm suggesting the top 50% in America are better of than the top 50% in Sweden. I'm asking you what that sentence means. Comparing groups is a tricky business. The richest half of Americans are better off in total? In the mean? In the median? Does it mean that the Pth percentile American is richer than the Pth percentile Swede, for all P>50? I'm ignoring, for the moment, the ambiguity in which Americans are the "top" ones and what if means to be "better off". (wealth? income? education? lifespan? self-reported happiness?) Maybe it would help if you point to some actual numbers by some social scientists that back up your claim.

treerock 11y ago

No. The assumption that government should fix everything is selfish and lazy. It absolves us of personal responsibility, and gives us someone to blame when things go wrong. I'd feel sorry for the politicians, except they do more than anyone to perpetuate this.

kaonashi 11y ago
The notion that individuals should fix everything is a cop-out and woefully insufficient.
- treerock 11y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of groups that can take on the responsibilities that government now assume.
  - dexterdog 11y ago
    And just about all of them (even Komen) do it more efficiently.
  - kaonashi 11y ago
    I should have written: the notion that individuals should fund everything is a cop-out and woefully insufficient.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    What if voters choose to delegate that responsibility to government, should they be prevented from doing so?
smtddr 11y ago
>>The assumption that government should fix everything is selfish and lazy. It absolves us of personal responsibility. It's also unreasonable to think everyone that's in a difficult situation got there by their own mistakes and have the ability to get out without help.

smtddr 11y ago

Yes and no. The government is too bird's-eye-view to understand the details of different communities. I do think, however, the government should have some kind connection with a group of people in each state to get a status on things. And each state should have groups in different communities representing it to report up to the state-level group. I feel like USA is already kinda designed that way, but something is making it not work... at least, it's not working for the poor.

arbitrage314 11y ago

I do think that, in general, charity is very reactive. Proactive approaches (e.g., education) are almost always better and more efficient.

notahacker 11y ago

Surely both can and should do their bit. Governments have the scale and power to run systemwide education, healthcare and crime reduction programmes; wealthy entrepreneurs have the freedom to try experimental schemes or artistic programmes that many people think sound like a waste of money.

ahallock 11y ago

So you'd rather have a middleman coercively distribute funds or amass more debt, and take some of the funds in overhead, rather than be able to direct your money where it's deserved, especially in an age when you can use the internet to set up payments and research deserving institutions? If you abdicate responsibility -- the poor are some distant entity's problem -- you are not being virtuous. By the way, it's not ONLY billionaires that can help with the needy. Your time is also valuable--for example, you could visit some lonely elderly people in a nursing home. If you pay it forward, people will help you out when you're in need. Your friends and family become your "social safety net."