5 ms·

It's not sarcasm at all. Does one person with a million dollars in excess liquidity to spend on water represent a greater "need" than one million people with n

It's not sarcasm at all. Does one person with a million dollars in excess liquidity to spend on water represent a greater "need" than one million people with no liquidity to spare? Would it be moral for that person to buy more than they need, solely to inflate prices? Would the resulting spot price in the market be in any way a meaningful gauge of the actual need? Market prices are only one gauge, and they are pretty faulty, easily manipulated one at that. Next up, you'll probably tell me that story points are a solid basis for predicting delivery times and making decisions about resource allocation.

viklove 7y ago
I think one of the facts many HNers struggle with is that the system that makes them wealthy is the same system that is starving people out and denying them access to healthcare. When you're a well-paid engineer you want to believe that you "earned" your position through hard work, but in reality its 90% luck. Some HNers even have their own successful business, and want to think that everyone below them is just lazy and doesn't deserve access to scarce resources. It's a much simpler way of looking at the world, so you can avoid looking in the mirror.
- someguydave 7y ago
  Please propose a system of distributing goods that is more "moral" or "fair" than the "highest bidder wins".
  - viklove 7y ago
    Provide a UBI so half the population isn't locked out of bidding entirely. The problem with capitalism is that 1% of the population ends up mega-wealthy, and 50% of the population ends up dirt poor, literally unable to afford food. When that happens, the 1% shouldn't get to decide who gets to eat and who gets to starve (by choosing which ones to employ). There should be some form of basic income to ensure everyone has access to some goods, and they can decide which ones to pay more for, and which ones to forego. In the current situation, if a business owner decides to drop you on the ground, you're literally gonna starve to death in the next month.
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      > In the current situation, if a business owner decides to drop you on the ground, you're literally gonna starve to death in the next month. That's not true at all. We have an extensive network of assistance programs. Of course these programs can be better in numerous ways. Nevertheless, nobody is starving in the street in the US.

viklove 7y ago

I think one of the facts many HNers struggle with is that the system that makes them wealthy is the same system that is starving people out and denying them access to healthcare. When you're a well-paid engineer you want to believe that you "earned" your position through hard work, but in reality its 90% luck. Some HNers even have their own successful business, and want to think that everyone below them is just lazy and doesn't deserve access to scarce resources. It's a much simpler way of looking at the world, so you can avoid looking in the mirror.

someguydave 7y ago
Please propose a system of distributing goods that is more "moral" or "fair" than the "highest bidder wins".
- viklove 7y ago
  Provide a UBI so half the population isn't locked out of bidding entirely. The problem with capitalism is that 1% of the population ends up mega-wealthy, and 50% of the population ends up dirt poor, literally unable to afford food. When that happens, the 1% shouldn't get to decide who gets to eat and who gets to starve (by choosing which ones to employ). There should be some form of basic income to ensure everyone has access to some goods, and they can decide which ones to pay more for, and which ones to forego. In the current situation, if a business owner decides to drop you on the ground, you're literally gonna starve to death in the next month.
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    > In the current situation, if a business owner decides to drop you on the ground, you're literally gonna starve to death in the next month. That's not true at all. We have an extensive network of assistance programs. Of course these programs can be better in numerous ways. Nevertheless, nobody is starving in the street in the US.