5 ms·

There is something odd about the complacency implied by the line of thinking this game seems to represent. Why is it more Jeff Bezos' problem to solve homelessn

There is something odd about the complacency implied by the line of thinking this game seems to represent. Why is it more Jeff Bezos' problem to solve homelessness than it is each of ours? Does he have a greater moral directive to do so than us because he has accumulated a great fortune? At what point do we as a society hold this theoretical Bezos accountable for the choices he makes? My point is not that he shouldn't give charitably, but there is something that seems deeply pessimistic to me about turning to the rich to solve our societal ills. If the implication is that we should have a more 'fair' tax system, I can get on board with some version of that straw man, but would rather we as a society fix our own problems rather than hoping for help from the plutocrats. Why should we assume that Bezos or any other billionaire would solve these problems in a way that is actually in society's best interest? Would we wish that Bezos spend his money differently than the Koch brothers? We have government to help create solutions for this space, and in my opinion we should reject the passive acceptance of mediocrity there and instead hold them accountable for delivering these things. I may not be holding my breath for this, but that is part of the problem.

angel_j 8y ago
The game isn't saying we should ask the rich to solve our problems. The game implies a system is fucked that allows one person to own a seemingly infinite sum, and leave others to suffer and die on the street. I think this is a fair assessment. A system that gives any one liberty to seek the greatest riches, should also protect those who's fortunes, being a part of the same system, are much poorer. It is probably a simple exercise to economically model how too much in one hand prevents enough in another's stomach. Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate so much in the first place. There must be a sense of commonwealth, because the only thing that exists "in a vacuum of society", is nature itself, and that must in some respect belong to everybody. It would not even amount to "wealth redistribution" to tax the top 0.01% enough to afford decent housing and education; it'd be a soft cap.
- slowmovintarget 8y ago
  > Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate so much in the first place. The economy is not a zero-sum game. Bezos has "accumulated" company stock by building the freaking company. He didn't stockpile food he took from someone's mouth. He created value, and got value in trade for it. That is not unethical. I'm willing to debate whether it is ethical to be uncharitable if you have great means. But can we please dispense with the notion that merely being wealthy is wrong?
  - mercer 8y ago
    It's fine that you disagree, but it rubs me the wrong way that you feel we should 'dispense with the notion'. Clearly the notion is one that a lot of people consider, at the very least, worth discussing. Implying that its ludicrous isn't much of an argument.
  - snarfybarfy 8y ago
    Being obscenly wealthy is so obviously wrong that many aspiring 'american dream' (TM) candidates can't even conceive of alternatives. While Jeff has undoubtedly worked hard and he is probably even above avarage smart, he is has NOT worked 100'000x as hard and is NOT 20x times smarter than the average Joe. Currently once you are rich it gets even easier to get even more rich. It should be the opposite. There should be a headwind making it harder the richer you get.
  - angel_j 8y ago
    Nobody said being wealthy is wrong. It was stated the system is unethical that allows one to die on the street with nothing, and another to possess all, where enough is available for everybody. We don't have to take food from somebody's mouth to prevent them from eating. In an economic system where you must have dollars to find food, you need only prevent them from getting enough money. And I'm not even saying Jeff Bezos does this. Nobody does it on purpose. It occurs naturally is our economic system, so we must determine whether it is ethical. > The economy is not a zero-sum game... it's also not a vacuum. The value of the dollars is nothing without a whole lot of other stuff going on. for instance: a 500B/yr standing military to protect the interests that keep those dollars valuable; a labor force that has been turned into a business commodity; the destruction of finite natural resources; the manipulation of the sovereignty of foreign peoples... it goes on.
stuart78 8y ago
In thinking about this last paragraph, I think it may imply I am suggesting that /only/ government can solve these issues. it would more accurately reflect my position to say that a diverse set of players can participate here, Gov't being one important one.
jondubois 8y ago
Most billionaires have some kind of monopoly over a part of the economy; in maintaining this monopoly, they are having a negative impact over the efficiency of the economy so they need to offset this by giving more.
- sbinthree 8y ago
  Is efficiency the best health metric for an economy, or is it just an easy one to use? Many of the most useful things become natural monopolies because they are so good.
  - jondubois 8y ago
    Life in developed countries hasn't improved at all in the past 10 years. There are more apps and more gadgets but no actual improvement. If you really consider everything, the life of the average consumer has gotten worse. Consumers are also producers and most consumers don't want to spend their lives being faceless cogs in the giant corporate machine but they don't have a choice anymore. What is the point of satisfying the most trivial consumer needs when their most fundamental needs to have a meaningful job are overlooked completely? If there were fewer corporations, people would have better jobs, fewer people would live in big cities and they would be happier overall. The system would be more efficient at delivering value to people.
edavison1 8y ago
"Does he have a greater moral directive to do so than us because he has accumulated a great fortune?" Yup!
- stuart78 8y ago
  I'd be interested in the next few sentences to go deeper on why. Why should we delegate the prioritization of societal values to the wealthy? what about wealth-accumulation makes them better suited to choosing how we should solve problems for our society. And why are you and I not equally responsible for influencing the direction of things within our means?
  - hendi_ 8y ago
    We are. But look at the very last words you've used: "within our means" Don't you think with a bank account some orders of magnitude larger than mine, Bezos' means are larger than mine?
  - edavison1 8y ago
    I wouldn't say that Bezos has an obligation to maximize well-being any greater than ours; but as the other comment pointed out, he is uniquely placed to have a much larger impact on large-scale problems. You're absolutely right when you imply that he is no better suited than anyone else to become an authority on those problems. And I think we are morally responsible for influencing problems within our means. Bezos can fund public libraries and provide clean drinking water, whereas I can comment on HN with a rudimentary understanding of meta-ethics :)

angel_j 8y ago

The game isn't saying we should ask the rich to solve our problems. The game implies a system is fucked that allows one person to own a seemingly infinite sum, and leave others to suffer and die on the street. I think this is a fair assessment. A system that gives any one liberty to seek the greatest riches, should also protect those who's fortunes, being a part of the same system, are much poorer. It is probably a simple exercise to economically model how too much in one hand prevents enough in another's stomach. Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate so much in the first place. There must be a sense of commonwealth, because the only thing that exists "in a vacuum of society", is nature itself, and that must in some respect belong to everybody. It would not even amount to "wealth redistribution" to tax the top 0.01% enough to afford decent housing and education; it'd be a soft cap.

slowmovintarget 8y ago
> Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate so much in the first place. The economy is not a zero-sum game. Bezos has "accumulated" company stock by building the freaking company. He didn't stockpile food he took from someone's mouth. He created value, and got value in trade for it. That is not unethical. I'm willing to debate whether it is ethical to be uncharitable if you have great means. But can we please dispense with the notion that merely being wealthy is wrong?
- mercer 8y ago
  It's fine that you disagree, but it rubs me the wrong way that you feel we should 'dispense with the notion'. Clearly the notion is one that a lot of people consider, at the very least, worth discussing. Implying that its ludicrous isn't much of an argument.
- snarfybarfy 8y ago
  Being obscenly wealthy is so obviously wrong that many aspiring 'american dream' (TM) candidates can't even conceive of alternatives. While Jeff has undoubtedly worked hard and he is probably even above avarage smart, he is has NOT worked 100'000x as hard and is NOT 20x times smarter than the average Joe. Currently once you are rich it gets even easier to get even more rich. It should be the opposite. There should be a headwind making it harder the richer you get.
- angel_j 8y ago
  Nobody said being wealthy is wrong. It was stated the system is unethical that allows one to die on the street with nothing, and another to possess all, where enough is available for everybody. We don't have to take food from somebody's mouth to prevent them from eating. In an economic system where you must have dollars to find food, you need only prevent them from getting enough money. And I'm not even saying Jeff Bezos does this. Nobody does it on purpose. It occurs naturally is our economic system, so we must determine whether it is ethical. > The economy is not a zero-sum game... it's also not a vacuum. The value of the dollars is nothing without a whole lot of other stuff going on. for instance: a 500B/yr standing military to protect the interests that keep those dollars valuable; a labor force that has been turned into a business commodity; the destruction of finite natural resources; the manipulation of the sovereignty of foreign peoples... it goes on.

stuart78 8y ago

In thinking about this last paragraph, I think it may imply I am suggesting that /only/ government can solve these issues. it would more accurately reflect my position to say that a diverse set of players can participate here, Gov't being one important one.

jondubois 8y ago

Most billionaires have some kind of monopoly over a part of the economy; in maintaining this monopoly, they are having a negative impact over the efficiency of the economy so they need to offset this by giving more.

sbinthree 8y ago
Is efficiency the best health metric for an economy, or is it just an easy one to use? Many of the most useful things become natural monopolies because they are so good.
- jondubois 8y ago
  Life in developed countries hasn't improved at all in the past 10 years. There are more apps and more gadgets but no actual improvement. If you really consider everything, the life of the average consumer has gotten worse. Consumers are also producers and most consumers don't want to spend their lives being faceless cogs in the giant corporate machine but they don't have a choice anymore. What is the point of satisfying the most trivial consumer needs when their most fundamental needs to have a meaningful job are overlooked completely? If there were fewer corporations, people would have better jobs, fewer people would live in big cities and they would be happier overall. The system would be more efficient at delivering value to people.

edavison1 8y ago

"Does he have a greater moral directive to do so than us because he has accumulated a great fortune?" Yup!

stuart78 8y ago
I'd be interested in the next few sentences to go deeper on why. Why should we delegate the prioritization of societal values to the wealthy? what about wealth-accumulation makes them better suited to choosing how we should solve problems for our society. And why are you and I not equally responsible for influencing the direction of things within our means?
- hendi_ 8y ago
  We are. But look at the very last words you've used: "within our means" Don't you think with a bank account some orders of magnitude larger than mine, Bezos' means are larger than mine?
- edavison1 8y ago
  I wouldn't say that Bezos has an obligation to maximize well-being any greater than ours; but as the other comment pointed out, he is uniquely placed to have a much larger impact on large-scale problems. You're absolutely right when you imply that he is no better suited than anyone else to become an authority on those problems. And I think we are morally responsible for influencing problems within our means. Bezos can fund public libraries and provide clean drinking water, whereas I can comment on HN with a rudimentary understanding of meta-ethics :)