5 ms·

This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it is, r

This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it is, redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO.

crote 8y ago
Does it, though? I can tell you that the contrast in, say, The Netherlands is a lot smaller. Take a look at Bilthoven [0], one of the the most extreme examples I know of. The (roughly) north side is obviously richer, but the contrast is an awful lot smaller than the examples from the BBC. Now let's look at a somewhat average city, Utrecht. [1] Can you tell me which parts the ultra-rich live? How about now? [2] Amsterdam is pretty much the same story, just like Rotterdam, Den Haag, etc. Sure, there are of course rich and poor people, but there are no slums, let alone slums right next to mansions! About the message: poor people are living in small, filthy, dilapidated houses right next to the immaculate mansions of the rich. Perhaps the rich could contribute a little towards the living conditions of the poor who helped them to gain their wealth? [0]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.1278844,5.1932405,3071m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.1278844,5.1932405,3071m/data=... [1]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0981346,5.1310086,3074m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0981346,5.1310086,3074m/data=... [2]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0999022,5.1106661,2583m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0999022,5.1106661,2583m/data=...
iamcasen 8y ago
The message the photographer is trying to convey is that our world economy relies on startling wealth inequality to keep functioning. There is no escape, and no solution without the wealthiest folks massively sacrificing. In order to live in a nice suburban home, drive a nice car, eat well, and have TVs and computers, slavery must exist. Important and useful minerals must be robbed from places like the Congo. Places like the Amazon must be slashed and burned. Otherwise, those conveniences would cost astronomical amounts of money, and only the likes of Jeff Bezos would have access.
- walshemj 8y ago
  But as I said else where the average wealth of a lot of developing countries has gone up a lot - take China 30/40 years ago to today and the Rise of the middle class in India.
  - iamcasen 8y ago
    Just because average wealth has increased, doesn't mean life is better. Who is more poor: a farmer who lives in the middle of no where in a hut, but has fresh water, fruit trees, and a couple goats, or a person who works at McDonalds in the USA? Those statistics would say the person in the hut is poorer of course, but I would disagree.
- Shivetya 8y ago
  the real test is, which side of the picture is growing. because the respect for private property and personal rights has reduced poverty more than any other means
adventured 8y ago
Every healthcare system on earth save for a few operates by redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Even in the US about 1/3 or more of its healthcare system operates by redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. There are good reasons to be critical of many forms of wealth redistribution, however it does clearly work in some instances. Just ask all the most developed nations, including the US (which has both one of the most progressive taxation systems and one of the largest welfare systems as a share of GDP). The primary debate is whether there are better approaches, or what degree / what manner of wealth redistribution is ideal, not whether any wealth redistribution can be effective.
petermcneeley 8y ago
Let me paraphrase what you said: "I dont see the problem. If there is a problem I dont know we should solve it. If there is a problem we shouldnt solve it because its natural. If it is a problem and we should deal with it we shouldnt use redistribution." Isnt there a name for this type of reasoning?
- nextstep 8y ago
  Rationalizing a system from which you perceive yourself to be benefiting from and thus wish not to alter the status quo?
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  It sounds like the Narcissist’s Prayer. That didn’t happen. And if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal. And if it is, that’s not my fault. And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did… You deserved it.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > Isnt there a name for this type of reasoning? counterfactual reasoning? if it weren't for the fact that you disagree, you might just call it being thorough.
- lkbm 8y ago
  Kettle logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic
  - r00fus 8y ago
    Why do legal arguments constantly seem to use this method all the time?
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Guessing: a defense needs to establish reasonable doubt, not an airtight theory of the case.
nerdponx 8y ago
You're jumping the gun. Start by just acknowledging that the phenomenon exists.
prolikewh0a 8y ago
>redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO. Why not? We essentially distributed it up, why can't it come back down?
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  No we didn’t. There isn’t a fixed amount of wealth that we just need to divvy up fairly. Wealth can be created and destroyed. It’s not a zero sum game.
  - black6 8y ago
    > It’s not a zero sum game. The very definition of inequality, unfortunately.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      That’s not how inequality works. Two people each having $5 is a low—inequality situation. One person having $10 and another having $100 is a high inequality situation, even though minimum and average wealth are both higher.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    How about all three? Wealth can be created, destroyed, and distributed. Wealth is redistributed all the time. Sometimes it’s called taxes, dividends, wages, etc. When it goes from the poor to the rich, we call it the free market. There are even make-believe concepts like “Trickle Down Economics” that describe wealth going from the rich to the poor.
    - mmirate 8y ago
      Counterintuitively, the sole root of all zero-sum economics is self-fulfilling prophecy of it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s
lainga 8y ago
And if you had a dog... http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html
walshemj 8y ago
Ill try follow the guidelines here You really don't see the issue here? The migration of poor peasants to the cities living in slums is a well known phenomenon even in the UK a lot of slums existed until well after ww2 Of course South Africa has its own tragic post ww2 history I would have thought that most people would have some understanding
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  "Ill try follow the guidelines here" Ya Im guessing my response was a bit borderline. I wish HN had a private response.
jamesrm4321 8y ago
This set of images is just an example of the extreme consolidation of wealth amongst some select few individuals. I agree that redistributing wealth equally is no easy feat, however, we need to be aware that this growing inequality is progressing exponentially. If precautions are not taken (i.e. net neutrality for example) the 1% will continue to acquire most of the world's wealth, making it more and more difficult for any social mobility.
walshemj 8y ago
Many developing countries have increased the average income over the last 40 or so years quite substantially - from a low base of course. You don't have the regular famines in Bangladesh which I recall from when I was a child.
billybolton 8y ago
What's wrong with just killing them, and taking their land? Obviously the rich don't give a shit about the poor. They'd rather hold on to their wealth, wall themselves into a gated community, than help their fellow citizens who are in poverty. The problem is people with wealth are too selfish to do anything. I'm all for having an involuntary euthanasia program for the poor and unfortunate.
- UpshotKnothole 8y ago
  I’m almost totally sure that we’re discouraged from endorsing mass murder on this forum, at least, that’s how I read the guidelines when I signed up. It doesn’t seem like the start of a good conversation, just hatred and spite looking for an outlet. Please stop.
  - billybolton 8y ago
    I wasn't actually endorsing mass murder. Dumbass white people have idiotic libertarian beliefs like "This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it is, redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO." You haven't seen actual suffering. In them minds of the wealthy, they'd rather hold on to their wealth than have a portion of it aid those in need. They fight so hard to hold on to their wealth, it's unreal. If you are so resistent to helping the poor that you make convoluted philosophical arguments like "ooooo wealth redistribution" ooo "not a real problem", why not just kill them? End the generation of impoverishment. That to me is much less cruel than letting it persist for 10 more generations.
    - briandear 8y ago
      Now you are being racist. Pretty sure that’s against HN guidelines. As far as wealth inequality, it’s far more extreme in “non-white” countries than in majority white countries. (Whatever “white” means.)
- zzt 8y ago
  Murder is absolutely not the answer here, and it is thoroughly dishonourable that you could wish to take the life of another. Their crimes of selfishness do not deserve the death penalty.

crote 8y ago

Does it, though? I can tell you that the contrast in, say, The Netherlands is a lot smaller. Take a look at Bilthoven [0], one of the the most extreme examples I know of. The (roughly) north side is obviously richer, but the contrast is an awful lot smaller than the examples from the BBC. Now let's look at a somewhat average city, Utrecht. [1] Can you tell me which parts the ultra-rich live? How about now? [2] Amsterdam is pretty much the same story, just like Rotterdam, Den Haag, etc. Sure, there are of course rich and poor people, but there are no slums, let alone slums right next to mansions! About the message: poor people are living in small, filthy, dilapidated houses right next to the immaculate mansions of the rich. Perhaps the rich could contribute a little towards the living conditions of the poor who helped them to gain their wealth? [0]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.1278844,5.1932405,3071m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.1278844,5.1932405,3071m/data=... [1]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0981346,5.1310086,3074m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0981346,5.1310086,3074m/data=... [2]: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0999022,5.1106661,2583m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0999022,5.1106661,2583m/data=...

iamcasen 8y ago

The message the photographer is trying to convey is that our world economy relies on startling wealth inequality to keep functioning. There is no escape, and no solution without the wealthiest folks massively sacrificing. In order to live in a nice suburban home, drive a nice car, eat well, and have TVs and computers, slavery must exist. Important and useful minerals must be robbed from places like the Congo. Places like the Amazon must be slashed and burned. Otherwise, those conveniences would cost astronomical amounts of money, and only the likes of Jeff Bezos would have access.

walshemj 8y ago
But as I said else where the average wealth of a lot of developing countries has gone up a lot - take China 30/40 years ago to today and the Rise of the middle class in India.
- iamcasen 8y ago
  Just because average wealth has increased, doesn't mean life is better. Who is more poor: a farmer who lives in the middle of no where in a hut, but has fresh water, fruit trees, and a couple goats, or a person who works at McDonalds in the USA? Those statistics would say the person in the hut is poorer of course, but I would disagree.
Shivetya 8y ago
the real test is, which side of the picture is growing. because the respect for private property and personal rights has reduced poverty more than any other means

adventured 8y ago

Every healthcare system on earth save for a few operates by redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Even in the US about 1/3 or more of its healthcare system operates by redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. There are good reasons to be critical of many forms of wealth redistribution, however it does clearly work in some instances. Just ask all the most developed nations, including the US (which has both one of the most progressive taxation systems and one of the largest welfare systems as a share of GDP). The primary debate is whether there are better approaches, or what degree / what manner of wealth redistribution is ideal, not whether any wealth redistribution can be effective.

petermcneeley 8y ago

Let me paraphrase what you said: "I dont see the problem. If there is a problem I dont know we should solve it. If there is a problem we shouldnt solve it because its natural. If it is a problem and we should deal with it we shouldnt use redistribution." Isnt there a name for this type of reasoning?

nextstep 8y ago
Rationalizing a system from which you perceive yourself to be benefiting from and thus wish not to alter the status quo?
DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
It sounds like the Narcissist’s Prayer. That didn’t happen. And if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal. And if it is, that’s not my fault. And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did… You deserved it.
leetcrew 8y ago
> Isnt there a name for this type of reasoning? counterfactual reasoning? if it weren't for the fact that you disagree, you might just call it being thorough.
lkbm 8y ago
Kettle logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic
- r00fus 8y ago
  Why do legal arguments constantly seem to use this method all the time?
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Guessing: a defense needs to establish reasonable doubt, not an airtight theory of the case.

nerdponx 8y ago

You're jumping the gun. Start by just acknowledging that the phenomenon exists.

prolikewh0a 8y ago

>redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO. Why not? We essentially distributed it up, why can't it come back down?

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
No we didn’t. There isn’t a fixed amount of wealth that we just need to divvy up fairly. Wealth can be created and destroyed. It’s not a zero sum game.
- black6 8y ago
  > It’s not a zero sum game. The very definition of inequality, unfortunately.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    That’s not how inequality works. Two people each having $5 is a low—inequality situation. One person having $10 and another having $100 is a high inequality situation, even though minimum and average wealth are both higher.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  How about all three? Wealth can be created, destroyed, and distributed. Wealth is redistributed all the time. Sometimes it’s called taxes, dividends, wages, etc. When it goes from the poor to the rich, we call it the free market. There are even make-believe concepts like “Trickle Down Economics” that describe wealth going from the rich to the poor.
  - mmirate 8y ago
    Counterintuitively, the sole root of all zero-sum economics is self-fulfilling prophecy of it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s

lainga 8y ago

And if you had a dog... http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html

walshemj 8y ago

Ill try follow the guidelines here You really don't see the issue here? The migration of poor peasants to the cities living in slums is a well known phenomenon even in the UK a lot of slums existed until well after ww2 Of course South Africa has its own tragic post ww2 history I would have thought that most people would have some understanding

petermcneeley 8y ago
"Ill try follow the guidelines here" Ya Im guessing my response was a bit borderline. I wish HN had a private response.

jamesrm4321 8y ago

This set of images is just an example of the extreme consolidation of wealth amongst some select few individuals. I agree that redistributing wealth equally is no easy feat, however, we need to be aware that this growing inequality is progressing exponentially. If precautions are not taken (i.e. net neutrality for example) the 1% will continue to acquire most of the world's wealth, making it more and more difficult for any social mobility.

walshemj 8y ago

Many developing countries have increased the average income over the last 40 or so years quite substantially - from a low base of course. You don't have the regular famines in Bangladesh which I recall from when I was a child.

billybolton 8y ago

What's wrong with just killing them, and taking their land? Obviously the rich don't give a shit about the poor. They'd rather hold on to their wealth, wall themselves into a gated community, than help their fellow citizens who are in poverty. The problem is people with wealth are too selfish to do anything. I'm all for having an involuntary euthanasia program for the poor and unfortunate.

UpshotKnothole 8y ago
I’m almost totally sure that we’re discouraged from endorsing mass murder on this forum, at least, that’s how I read the guidelines when I signed up. It doesn’t seem like the start of a good conversation, just hatred and spite looking for an outlet. Please stop.
- billybolton 8y ago
  I wasn't actually endorsing mass murder. Dumbass white people have idiotic libertarian beliefs like "This exists probably in all countries. I also don't quite get the message out of these pictures. Or if it is even a matter which needs to be solved. If it is, redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO." You haven't seen actual suffering. In them minds of the wealthy, they'd rather hold on to their wealth than have a portion of it aid those in need. They fight so hard to hold on to their wealth, it's unreal. If you are so resistent to helping the poor that you make convoluted philosophical arguments like "ooooo wealth redistribution" ooo "not a real problem", why not just kill them? End the generation of impoverishment. That to me is much less cruel than letting it persist for 10 more generations.
  - briandear 8y ago
    Now you are being racist. Pretty sure that’s against HN guidelines. As far as wealth inequality, it’s far more extreme in “non-white” countries than in majority white countries. (Whatever “white” means.)
zzt 8y ago
Murder is absolutely not the answer here, and it is thoroughly dishonourable that you could wish to take the life of another. Their crimes of selfishness do not deserve the death penalty.