3 ms·

the problem with PGs essay was that it is full of strawmen and non sequiturs made up by him. For example, the sentence you just described. Let's attack povert

the problem with PGs essay was that it is full of strawmen and non sequiturs made up by him. For example, the sentence you just described. Let's attack poverty - what does that mean in practice? in practice, that means spending money on solutions to poverty, ala Sweden. Where does that money come from? from taxes. So, the conversation about raising taxes on the wealthy ( or "attacking wealth" as he says ), outside of a very small fringe, is just really a conversation about raising funds to attack poverty. And PG made it sound as if the conversation is about attacking wealth for its own sake, which nobody but the fringe is having

haberman 11y ago
> PG made it sound as if the conversation is about attacking wealth for its own sake, which nobody but the fringe is having Let us test this claim. I Googled "inequality in the us" and clicked the first several results. If your claim is true, these will only discuss attacking poverty, and not attacking wealth. (I am assuming that top Google hits do not constitute "the fringe"). The first result is: "20 Facts About U.S. Inequality that Everyone Should Know from The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality." (http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/facts.php http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/facts.php). The first two "facts" concern wage inequality and CEO pay, neither of which say anything a priori about poverty. Many of the other "facts" on the page do address poverty more directly. The Wikipedia page on Income Inequality is next (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...). It primarily discusses actual inequality, mentioning poverty only in one specific section. One of the policy proposals it describes is one of a maximum wage, which has nothing to do with decreasing poverty. The third result is a Salon.com piece, "35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality" (http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/35_soul_crushing_facts_about_american_income_inequality_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/35_soul_crushing_facts_about...). Many of them are again facts that do not say anything about poverty, like "The poorest half of the Earth’s population owns 1% of the Earth’s wealth. The richest 1% of the Earth’s population owns 46% of the Earth’s wealth." Facts like these are directly pitting the poor against the rich, without saying anything about whether the lower earners actually have their needs met and/or have social mobility. So I disagree that this is a "strawman." I think a core part of the conversation about inequality is that is it horrifying how much the rich have compared with everyone else. That is the attitude that PG is arguing against.
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  I am talking about not a few articles here and there that can be googled, but rather an actual political agenda that will result in actionable laws, regulations etc. The agenda on the table specifically, is, as an example, Obamacare, which is a program that raises taxes on the rich and transfers that money to provide healthcare for the poor. take the most left wing candidate in the presidential race today, Bernie Sanders. Is his agenda to attack wealth for its own sake? No, his agenda is to tax the rich in order to transfer that money to programs that will fight poverty. I am not a Bernie Sanders supporter, but the fact that even he doesn't attack wealth for its own sake, tells you that PG's essay is a giant strawman.

haberman 11y ago

> PG made it sound as if the conversation is about attacking wealth for its own sake, which nobody but the fringe is having Let us test this claim. I Googled "inequality in the us" and clicked the first several results. If your claim is true, these will only discuss attacking poverty, and not attacking wealth. (I am assuming that top Google hits do not constitute "the fringe"). The first result is: "20 Facts About U.S. Inequality that Everyone Should Know from The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality." (http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/facts.php http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/facts.php). The first two "facts" concern wage inequality and CEO pay, neither of which say anything a priori about poverty. Many of the other "facts" on the page do address poverty more directly. The Wikipedia page on Income Inequality is next (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...). It primarily discusses actual inequality, mentioning poverty only in one specific section. One of the policy proposals it describes is one of a maximum wage, which has nothing to do with decreasing poverty. The third result is a Salon.com piece, "35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality" (http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/35_soul_crushing_facts_about_american_income_inequality_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/35_soul_crushing_facts_about...). Many of them are again facts that do not say anything about poverty, like "The poorest half of the Earth’s population owns 1% of the Earth’s wealth. The richest 1% of the Earth’s population owns 46% of the Earth’s wealth." Facts like these are directly pitting the poor against the rich, without saying anything about whether the lower earners actually have their needs met and/or have social mobility. So I disagree that this is a "strawman." I think a core part of the conversation about inequality is that is it horrifying how much the rich have compared with everyone else. That is the attitude that PG is arguing against.

vasilipupkin 11y ago
I am talking about not a few articles here and there that can be googled, but rather an actual political agenda that will result in actionable laws, regulations etc. The agenda on the table specifically, is, as an example, Obamacare, which is a program that raises taxes on the rich and transfers that money to provide healthcare for the poor. take the most left wing candidate in the presidential race today, Bernie Sanders. Is his agenda to attack wealth for its own sake? No, his agenda is to tax the rich in order to transfer that money to programs that will fight poverty. I am not a Bernie Sanders supporter, but the fact that even he doesn't attack wealth for its own sake, tells you that PG's essay is a giant strawman.