3 ms·

The globalization process has nearly run it's course. In the near future we're going to need to pick one: tariffs, redistribution, or poor-people-with-pitch-for

The globalization process has nearly run it's course. In the near future we're going to need to pick one: tariffs, redistribution, or poor-people-with-pitch-forks.

darawk 11y ago
I agree completely. My choice is redistribution. Tariffs and pitch-forks both shrink the pie for everyone. Striving for efficiency and progress at all costs, and then redistributing the results seems like the clearly optimal path to me.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  How much are you giving to charity right now?
  - darawk 11y ago
    Very little. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be in favor of wealth being redistributed from me as a matter of policy, though.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      Why wait for the government to force you to give to help people?
      - darawk 11y ago
        Because i'm not interested in making incremental differences. If it's me or one other faceless person, i'll choose me. Call me selfish if you like, but if it's not part of a sweeping policy that furthers civilization generally, or i'm not rich enough to personally make a significant dent, it's just not all that appealing to me to make small incremental contributions. Now, you can disagree with that philosophy of personal charity. I'm not even sure I agree with it - but it's really of no relevance to the point under discussion.
  - dmix 11y ago
    I have very little incentive to give to charity when 40%+ of my income goes to taxes. It seems like poor use of resources at that point. Primarily because there isn't a well developed charity industry for helping the poor as government has taken over this role. In Canada I know at least we have a well run medical system and some low-grade social support systems I'm already helping support. If I had 10-20% extra income and there was a well-run Kiva style system for local poor people in my neighbourhood, I would definitely donate. Probably beyond that percentage.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      > I have very little incentive to give to charity when 40%+ of my income goes to taxes. It seems like poor use of resources at that point. Some would say that 40% is itself a poor use of resources. When examples of government inefficiency and outright incompetence surround us, I don't understand why people have such faith in it doing anything else well. > Primarily because there isn't a well developed charity industry for helping the poor as government has taken over this role. If I had 20% extra income and there was a well-run Kiva style system for local poor people in my neighbourhood, I would definitely donate. I don't know what your criteria are, but it seems to me that you're overlooking the innumerable local charities that quietly go about their work helping people every day, with minimal overhead compared to government-run programs. Are there any churches where you live? Do any of them have programs to feed or clothe the needy in the area? Any homeless shelters? Imagine if half of the money you pay in taxes that goes to government-run aid programs were given to these local charities instead.
      - et2o 11y ago
        In general, government aid programs are extremely economically efficient.
  - tdaltonc 11y ago
    In case you are not just being smug: Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons[1]? It does a good job of capturing the strategic dynamics at play here. One very effective solution to the tragedy of the commons is for everyone to get together agree to submit to a common set of rules. Do you see the analogy here? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The globalization process has nearly run it's course. In the near future we're going to need to pick one: tariffs, redistribution, or poor-people-with-pitch-forks.

darawk 11y ago

I agree completely. My choice is redistribution. Tariffs and pitch-forks both shrink the pie for everyone. Striving for efficiency and progress at all costs, and then redistributing the results seems like the clearly optimal path to me.

alphapapa 11y ago
How much are you giving to charity right now?
- darawk 11y ago
  Very little. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be in favor of wealth being redistributed from me as a matter of policy, though.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    Why wait for the government to force you to give to help people?
    - darawk 11y ago
      Because i'm not interested in making incremental differences. If it's me or one other faceless person, i'll choose me. Call me selfish if you like, but if it's not part of a sweeping policy that furthers civilization generally, or i'm not rich enough to personally make a significant dent, it's just not all that appealing to me to make small incremental contributions. Now, you can disagree with that philosophy of personal charity. I'm not even sure I agree with it - but it's really of no relevance to the point under discussion.
- dmix 11y ago
  I have very little incentive to give to charity when 40%+ of my income goes to taxes. It seems like poor use of resources at that point. Primarily because there isn't a well developed charity industry for helping the poor as government has taken over this role. In Canada I know at least we have a well run medical system and some low-grade social support systems I'm already helping support. If I had 10-20% extra income and there was a well-run Kiva style system for local poor people in my neighbourhood, I would definitely donate. Probably beyond that percentage.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    > I have very little incentive to give to charity when 40%+ of my income goes to taxes. It seems like poor use of resources at that point. Some would say that 40% is itself a poor use of resources. When examples of government inefficiency and outright incompetence surround us, I don't understand why people have such faith in it doing anything else well. > Primarily because there isn't a well developed charity industry for helping the poor as government has taken over this role. If I had 20% extra income and there was a well-run Kiva style system for local poor people in my neighbourhood, I would definitely donate. I don't know what your criteria are, but it seems to me that you're overlooking the innumerable local charities that quietly go about their work helping people every day, with minimal overhead compared to government-run programs. Are there any churches where you live? Do any of them have programs to feed or clothe the needy in the area? Any homeless shelters? Imagine if half of the money you pay in taxes that goes to government-run aid programs were given to these local charities instead.
    - et2o 11y ago
      In general, government aid programs are extremely economically efficient.
- tdaltonc 11y ago
  In case you are not just being smug: Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons[1]? It does a good job of capturing the strategic dynamics at play here. One very effective solution to the tragedy of the commons is for everyone to get together agree to submit to a common set of rules. Do you see the analogy here? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons