3 ms·

Economic inequality means that some people have more money than others. If we attack all forms of it, we attack the people who worked really hard to create new

by Natsu 11y ago

Economic inequality means that some people have more money than others. If we attack all forms of it, we attack the people who worked really hard to create new things that have improved our lives (medicine, electricity, computers, etc.), which hurts everyone because the people who did do great things aren't rewarded and why try hard if people are going to hate you for being successful? If instead we attack things like usurious debt traps, we actually help people who are being used and abused for having no money. But this is a political thing now so anyone who doesn't follow the party line will probably provoke a xenophobic tribal reaction rather than responses.

eridius 11y ago
You seem to be making the same extremist assumption that pg is, the same thing that people were complaining about with his original essay. There's a big difference between reducing income inequality and eliminating it, but you don't seem to see the difference. Trying to reduce income inequality across the board does not mean people who create value are no longer being rewarded. And don't forget as well that the people who get rich off of things like medicine, electricity, computers etc. are often not actually the people who worked hard to create them.
- Natsu 11y ago
  I'd like to see the positions actually being advanced, then, because they've not been made very clear by anyone. And I can find people who are advancing that sort of extremist position, though I can't say that I understand them very well. See, e.g. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10831261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10831261
  - eridius 11y ago
    Are you talking about the Medium post or about commenters on that story? I'm assuming it's the Medium post. And if so... that Medium post is not advancing an extremist position at all. It's just disagreeing, loudly, with pg. My hunch is that any time someone declares there to be a problem with "income inequality", people like you and pg read that as declaring the problem to exist with any amount of income inequality, when in fact people typically mean extreme income inequality, given some ill-defined measure of extreme (people will always disagree over what "extreme" qualifies as, but I think most people in America agree that we've gone well past "extreme" by anyone's definition). Edit: When I say it's not advancing an extremist position, I'm talking specifically about income inequality. The post is also arguing against the claim that startups create value, or really that the people who are getting rich in silicon valley are creating value, which is certainly a whole different discussion to be had (though it appears that the author isn't actually saying they aren't creating value, it's just saying that any value they're creating is subjective and not everybody agrees that it is, in fact, valuable). But the bits about income inequality are certainly not extremist at all.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      Honestly, I got more information out of the comments than that article, which was mostly insults advancing a strawman of PG's position. But back to what you're saying, can you give more examples at least? To pick some of the richest (most extreme?) people for wealth inequality, is it wrong that for example, Warren Buffet managed to acquire a lot of money and then give most of it to charity? The problem with advancing an ill-defined position like 'extreme' inequality is that I'm not sure that anyone is on the same page, though based on the abuse hurled at anyone asking questions, it seems like questioning it is equivalent to hating the "poors" (at least, if Medium is to be believed). I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, I have great sympathy for the poor and I try to help where I'm able. Is Elon Musk be another example? I'm not sure we'd have SpaceX or Tesla if he wasn't able to get rich. If there's a problem with wealth, I'd say that it's where incentives are misaligned (e.g. a CEO might get a huge bonus by laying people off). As for value... I think too many people are unfamiliar with the terms as used in economics and that's leading to very confusing posts. Startups may create wealth (new services that didn't exist, new technology, etc.) and that's the important thing. 'Value' is either completely subjective or tied to currency (I repeat myself) so I don't think anything useful comes out of discussing that. I think a lot of people get distracted over movements of currency, when the real focus should be the increase of global wealth and making sure that everyone has access to at least some basic standard of living. The world has been moving in that direction for a long time and I certainly hope that more people are able to live well in the future, though it seems like energy security is the most likely bottleneck.

by Natsu 11y ago

eridius 11y ago

You seem to be making the same extremist assumption that pg is, the same thing that people were complaining about with his original essay. There's a big difference between reducing income inequality and eliminating it, but you don't seem to see the difference. Trying to reduce income inequality across the board does not mean people who create value are no longer being rewarded. And don't forget as well that the people who get rich off of things like medicine, electricity, computers etc. are often not actually the people who worked hard to create them.

Natsu 11y ago
I'd like to see the positions actually being advanced, then, because they've not been made very clear by anyone. And I can find people who are advancing that sort of extremist position, though I can't say that I understand them very well. See, e.g. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10831261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10831261
- eridius 11y ago
  Are you talking about the Medium post or about commenters on that story? I'm assuming it's the Medium post. And if so... that Medium post is not advancing an extremist position at all. It's just disagreeing, loudly, with pg. My hunch is that any time someone declares there to be a problem with "income inequality", people like you and pg read that as declaring the problem to exist with any amount of income inequality, when in fact people typically mean extreme income inequality, given some ill-defined measure of extreme (people will always disagree over what "extreme" qualifies as, but I think most people in America agree that we've gone well past "extreme" by anyone's definition). Edit: When I say it's not advancing an extremist position, I'm talking specifically about income inequality. The post is also arguing against the claim that startups create value, or really that the people who are getting rich in silicon valley are creating value, which is certainly a whole different discussion to be had (though it appears that the author isn't actually saying they aren't creating value, it's just saying that any value they're creating is subjective and not everybody agrees that it is, in fact, valuable). But the bits about income inequality are certainly not extremist at all.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    Honestly, I got more information out of the comments than that article, which was mostly insults advancing a strawman of PG's position. But back to what you're saying, can you give more examples at least? To pick some of the richest (most extreme?) people for wealth inequality, is it wrong that for example, Warren Buffet managed to acquire a lot of money and then give most of it to charity? The problem with advancing an ill-defined position like 'extreme' inequality is that I'm not sure that anyone is on the same page, though based on the abuse hurled at anyone asking questions, it seems like questioning it is equivalent to hating the "poors" (at least, if Medium is to be believed). I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, I have great sympathy for the poor and I try to help where I'm able. Is Elon Musk be another example? I'm not sure we'd have SpaceX or Tesla if he wasn't able to get rich. If there's a problem with wealth, I'd say that it's where incentives are misaligned (e.g. a CEO might get a huge bonus by laying people off). As for value... I think too many people are unfamiliar with the terms as used in economics and that's leading to very confusing posts. Startups may create wealth (new services that didn't exist, new technology, etc.) and that's the important thing. 'Value' is either completely subjective or tied to currency (I repeat myself) so I don't think anything useful comes out of discussing that. I think a lot of people get distracted over movements of currency, when the real focus should be the increase of global wealth and making sure that everyone has access to at least some basic standard of living. The world has been moving in that direction for a long time and I certainly hope that more people are able to live well in the future, though it seems like energy security is the most likely bottleneck.