3 ms·

> And why is it bad that it harms the "good" ways too? After all, startups are not good because they cause income inequality. Because without the potential for

> And why is it bad that it harms the "good" ways too? After all, startups are not good because they cause income inequality. Because without the potential for outsized returns significantly fewer would be founders would take the risk.

eridius 11y ago
Reduced income inequality is still income inequality. Outsized returns that are reduced by some percentage are still outsized returns.
- Kalium 11y ago
  If you reduce "outsized returns" by 99.999999%, are they still "outsized"? What defines an outsized return? What's the proper amount of income inequality and what's a proper rate of return? In a context like this, definitions are everything.
  - eridius 11y ago
    That's an extremely absurdist position to take. Why would you assume that any attempt to reduce income inequality would try to do so by 99.999999%?
    - Kalium 11y ago
      You claimed "Outsized returns that are reduced by some percentage are still outsized returns". I'm asking you to define what an "outsized return" is, and provided an arbitrary "some perfectage" for context. How much does it need to be reduced before it's not outsized? The question sounds absurd as I asked it, but only because it's in response to an equally absurd position. So. What's a non-outsized return?
      - eridius 11y ago
        You're being unnecessarily pedantic, and it's not beneficial to the conversation at all. This appears to be a silencing tactic, trying to force me to put specific numbers down when they're completely irrelevant, and refusing to address the overall point until it's done so. I do not appreciate your use of this tactic.
        Kalium 11y ago
        What I desire, at this moment in time, is for you to clarify a vague stance into a clear one. Your attempt to dodge this eminently reasonable request is absurd and not beneficial to the conversation at all. This appears to be a silencing tactic, trying to force me to not ask for clarification of a position, and refusing to consider why this might be relevant. I do not appreciate your use of this tactic. Have a nice day.

eridius 11y ago

Reduced income inequality is still income inequality. Outsized returns that are reduced by some percentage are still outsized returns.

Kalium 11y ago
If you reduce "outsized returns" by 99.999999%, are they still "outsized"? What defines an outsized return? What's the proper amount of income inequality and what's a proper rate of return? In a context like this, definitions are everything.
- eridius 11y ago
  That's an extremely absurdist position to take. Why would you assume that any attempt to reduce income inequality would try to do so by 99.999999%?
  - Kalium 11y ago
    You claimed "Outsized returns that are reduced by some percentage are still outsized returns". I'm asking you to define what an "outsized return" is, and provided an arbitrary "some perfectage" for context. How much does it need to be reduced before it's not outsized? The question sounds absurd as I asked it, but only because it's in response to an equally absurd position. So. What's a non-outsized return?
    - eridius 11y ago
      You're being unnecessarily pedantic, and it's not beneficial to the conversation at all. This appears to be a silencing tactic, trying to force me to put specific numbers down when they're completely irrelevant, and refusing to address the overall point until it's done so. I do not appreciate your use of this tactic.
      - Kalium 11y ago
        What I desire, at this moment in time, is for you to clarify a vague stance into a clear one. Your attempt to dodge this eminently reasonable request is absurd and not beneficial to the conversation at all. This appears to be a silencing tactic, trying to force me to not ask for clarification of a position, and refusing to consider why this might be relevant. I do not appreciate your use of this tactic. Have a nice day.