6 ms·

He may (or may not) be contradicting himself, but the argument isn't wrong. By hoarding wealth, the richest prevent their own wealth from growing (out of risk

He may (or may not) be contradicting himself, but the argument isn't wrong. By hoarding wealth, the richest prevent their own wealth from growing (out of risk aversion and greed), and they end up either voluntarily transferring wealth or it's taken from them by an angry underclass. You can see why (after the fact), they would've preferred the former. Posted this yesterday but Acemoglu and Robinson's Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy goes into this in depth. http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/01/book_review_eco.html http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2006/01/book_rev... Besides, it's really nice to be wealthy, but wealth can't protect the wealthiest from getting murdered by someone lacking mental healthcare or getting radicalized because they have no other option. Thus spreading the wealth does help everyone. Also, you are misrepresenting what he said re Britain and the US. I am British by birth, but I have lived in the United States since 2012 and became a citizen in late 2016. There are lots of reasons I have made America my home, but one of them is the American ideal of opportunity. I always hated the walls created by social class distinctions in the United Kingdom. The American ideal of a classless society is, to me, a deeply attractive one. It has been disheartening to learn that the class structure of my new homeland is, if anything, more rigid than the one I left behind and especially so at the top. The only thing he's saying is that while Britain has a society with obvious class differences, the US has those differences hidden. It's not that it took years for him to figure out cause he's a clueless dummy.

jacob019 9y ago
While I would love to live in a more equal society, history shows time and again that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. We should try to devise systems that prevent power from centralizing in the first place.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Wealth has been redistributed via various government means for centuries. Did the income tax help society or destroy it? What would this discussion look like without it? There are ways of gradually doing it that don't involve mass upheaval.
- tnzn 9y ago
  Is that because the government redistributes the wealth, or because the powerful ones make it so that redistributing the wealth doesn't work ? (ie tax evasion)
  - crusso 9y ago
    Yes.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    The explanation I've heard is that it disincentives people from the hard work which creates wealth. Anyway, I don't think your explanation "the rich undermine wealth redistribution" explains the parent's conclusion that wealth is destroyed (a failure to redistribute wealth doesn't necessarily result in less wealth overall).
- jamescostian 9y ago
  > efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it Not sure what you mean by this. Isn't the goal here to destroy a lot of wealth? Wealth is a relative term - someone with $1B is not rich because 1B is an inherently big number, they are rich because $1B is orders of magnitudes greater than what most people will make in their lifetimes. Making people all have about the same in the bank other would destroy wealth.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    He means that by trying to redistribute wealth, we end up with less overall to go around. Something like a smaller GDP, though I don't know if that's the metric the parent has in mind. I also don't know how true this argument is; I'm just the messenger.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - mac01021 9y ago
    While relative wealth definitely has value (mostly because it enables you to afford the labor of others), wealth itself is not fundamentally relative. - Almost everyone today (in western, developed nations) has more purchasing power than almost everyone did 100 years ago. Doesn't that mean that everyone is more wealthy? - As new technology is developed, Alice's wealth depends less on Bob's poverty, because she can rely more on automation and less on Bob's labor. This might cause tremendous problems for Bob, but that's besides the point. Bob can now (if he manages to prosper) become immeasurably wealthy without reducing Alice's wealth in the least. - You could make millions of dollars selling farm equipment. It seems clear that, in doing this, you are accumulating wealth. But it is not clear that your success needs to be at anyone's expense. Presumably your customers are buying your wares because your product helps them build wealth too. If the market is saturated, your success might come at the expense of your competitor's, but that seems like a different phenomenon from the idea of relative wealth that you've described above.
    - deleted 9y ago
- gizmo 9y ago
  History shows no such thing. Making college free (or at least easily affordable) is highly redistributive and highly accretive. See also: public transportation, affordable childcare, and so. You're not just wrong when you say that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. The opposite is true: funding the commons through progressive taxation makes modern society possible. Redistribution is at the absolute core of everything the government does.
  - jacob019 9y ago
    An interesting perspective, feels cynical to me. I fully support progressive taxation, free education, public transit, affordable health care and so-forth. I would argue that government is a service provider. We can't all be expected to maintain our own defense, so we do it together. When we are provided these services that are equal to or greater than the value that we pay for them, we are richer for it. There is no redistribution there. The more wealth you have the more valuable the local police force is to you. The wealthy need educated employees. Government is able to organize childcare services that keep low income workers in the workforce, that helps everyone.
    - gizmo 9y ago
      > government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it > I fully support progressive taxation, free education, public transit, affordable health care Choose one. (Hint: all taxation is redistributive)
      - jacob019 9y ago
        I do not accept the premise that all taxation is redistributive. When services are provided to the taxpayer that exceed the value of the taxes then wealth is created. We as a society choose to perform certain services collectively though our government because it costs less to do it together. There is a tipping point where taxation becomes redistribution.
        9y ago
gizmo 9y ago
The author isn't making any of the arguments you attribute to him. If rich people had to choose between redistribution and the guillotine, sure, then redistribution would be in their best interest. But that's not the dilemma rich people face, and there is no indication there will be a violent uprising anytime soon. Activists get ignored, unless they anger the wrong people and then they get squashed. The majority of Americans don't even vote because they have so little faith in the political system. This is not an accident, people are pushed towards apathy because that serves the wealthy. Spreading the wealth helps everyone from a Rawlsian perspective. But if you're already rich you have nothing to gain from redistribution. If civil unrest starts brewing you can easily skip the country and wait for the storm to pass. > the US has those differences hidden Taxi drivers have missing teeth. There is nothing hidden about this. It's in plain sight. Just like the homeless in every city asking if you can spare a dollar. Just like the ostentatious displays of wealth in the "right" neighborhoods. It's impossible not to see this, unless you're a clueless dummy isolated by privilege.
- mac01021 9y ago
  Are you saying that the wealthy regularly perform acts deliberately calculated to instill apathy in the general populace? If this is true then it is very interesting and I would like some examples.
  - gizmo 9y ago
    Deliberately? Probably not. But all of consumer culture, 5 minute news cycle, pop culture, and economic pressure makes it very hard for people get politically involved. Most people have to struggle just to survive. The middle class worries about living in the right neighborhood with the right schools, so their children can have a good life. Nobody can afford to get involved in their community, or with local politics. Noam Chomsky has written a number of interesting articles about apathy and alienation. I highly recommend The Utopia of Rules by David Graeber. Not directly about apathy in society, but related.
    - mac01021 9y ago
prostoalex 9y ago
> By hoarding wealth, the richest prevent their own wealth from growing (out of risk aversion and greed) The list of US' richest people nowadays consists of founders of Microsoft, founders of Google, founder of Facebook, founder of Amazon and founder of Oracle. So how many of today's richest became richest by hoarding and hoarding alone, Scrooge McDuck style?

jacob019 9y ago

While I would love to live in a more equal society, history shows time and again that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. We should try to devise systems that prevent power from centralizing in the first place.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Wealth has been redistributed via various government means for centuries. Did the income tax help society or destroy it? What would this discussion look like without it? There are ways of gradually doing it that don't involve mass upheaval.
tnzn 9y ago
Is that because the government redistributes the wealth, or because the powerful ones make it so that redistributing the wealth doesn't work ? (ie tax evasion)
- crusso 9y ago
  Yes.
- weberc2 9y ago
  The explanation I've heard is that it disincentives people from the hard work which creates wealth. Anyway, I don't think your explanation "the rich undermine wealth redistribution" explains the parent's conclusion that wealth is destroyed (a failure to redistribute wealth doesn't necessarily result in less wealth overall).
jamescostian 9y ago
> efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it Not sure what you mean by this. Isn't the goal here to destroy a lot of wealth? Wealth is a relative term - someone with $1B is not rich because 1B is an inherently big number, they are rich because $1B is orders of magnitudes greater than what most people will make in their lifetimes. Making people all have about the same in the bank other would destroy wealth.
- weberc2 9y ago
  He means that by trying to redistribute wealth, we end up with less overall to go around. Something like a smaller GDP, though I don't know if that's the metric the parent has in mind. I also don't know how true this argument is; I'm just the messenger.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- mac01021 9y ago
  While relative wealth definitely has value (mostly because it enables you to afford the labor of others), wealth itself is not fundamentally relative. - Almost everyone today (in western, developed nations) has more purchasing power than almost everyone did 100 years ago. Doesn't that mean that everyone is more wealthy? - As new technology is developed, Alice's wealth depends less on Bob's poverty, because she can rely more on automation and less on Bob's labor. This might cause tremendous problems for Bob, but that's besides the point. Bob can now (if he manages to prosper) become immeasurably wealthy without reducing Alice's wealth in the least. - You could make millions of dollars selling farm equipment. It seems clear that, in doing this, you are accumulating wealth. But it is not clear that your success needs to be at anyone's expense. Presumably your customers are buying your wares because your product helps them build wealth too. If the market is saturated, your success might come at the expense of your competitor's, but that seems like a different phenomenon from the idea of relative wealth that you've described above.
  - deleted 9y ago
gizmo 9y ago
History shows no such thing. Making college free (or at least easily affordable) is highly redistributive and highly accretive. See also: public transportation, affordable childcare, and so. You're not just wrong when you say that government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it. The opposite is true: funding the commons through progressive taxation makes modern society possible. Redistribution is at the absolute core of everything the government does.
- jacob019 9y ago
  An interesting perspective, feels cynical to me. I fully support progressive taxation, free education, public transit, affordable health care and so-forth. I would argue that government is a service provider. We can't all be expected to maintain our own defense, so we do it together. When we are provided these services that are equal to or greater than the value that we pay for them, we are richer for it. There is no redistribution there. The more wealth you have the more valuable the local police force is to you. The wealthy need educated employees. Government is able to organize childcare services that keep low income workers in the workforce, that helps everyone.
  - gizmo 9y ago
    > government efforts to redistribute wealth mostly destroy it > I fully support progressive taxation, free education, public transit, affordable health care Choose one. (Hint: all taxation is redistributive)
    - jacob019 9y ago
      I do not accept the premise that all taxation is redistributive. When services are provided to the taxpayer that exceed the value of the taxes then wealth is created. We as a society choose to perform certain services collectively though our government because it costs less to do it together. There is a tipping point where taxation becomes redistribution.
      - 9y ago

gizmo 9y ago

The author isn't making any of the arguments you attribute to him. If rich people had to choose between redistribution and the guillotine, sure, then redistribution would be in their best interest. But that's not the dilemma rich people face, and there is no indication there will be a violent uprising anytime soon. Activists get ignored, unless they anger the wrong people and then they get squashed. The majority of Americans don't even vote because they have so little faith in the political system. This is not an accident, people are pushed towards apathy because that serves the wealthy. Spreading the wealth helps everyone from a Rawlsian perspective. But if you're already rich you have nothing to gain from redistribution. If civil unrest starts brewing you can easily skip the country and wait for the storm to pass. > the US has those differences hidden Taxi drivers have missing teeth. There is nothing hidden about this. It's in plain sight. Just like the homeless in every city asking if you can spare a dollar. Just like the ostentatious displays of wealth in the "right" neighborhoods. It's impossible not to see this, unless you're a clueless dummy isolated by privilege.

mac01021 9y ago
Are you saying that the wealthy regularly perform acts deliberately calculated to instill apathy in the general populace? If this is true then it is very interesting and I would like some examples.
- gizmo 9y ago
  Deliberately? Probably not. But all of consumer culture, 5 minute news cycle, pop culture, and economic pressure makes it very hard for people get politically involved. Most people have to struggle just to survive. The middle class worries about living in the right neighborhood with the right schools, so their children can have a good life. Nobody can afford to get involved in their community, or with local politics. Noam Chomsky has written a number of interesting articles about apathy and alienation. I highly recommend The Utopia of Rules by David Graeber. Not directly about apathy in society, but related.
  - mac01021 9y ago

prostoalex 9y ago

> By hoarding wealth, the richest prevent their own wealth from growing (out of risk aversion and greed) The list of US' richest people nowadays consists of founders of Microsoft, founders of Google, founder of Facebook, founder of Amazon and founder of Oracle. So how many of today's richest became richest by hoarding and hoarding alone, Scrooge McDuck style?