4 ms·

That would be true if there was wealth distribution happening, but there isn't. Most of this money goes into the hands of the richest people.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I'd love to see poor people have more money, but I don't see why that's a critical feature for a plan to keep the economy running well. There are many important problems that just don't have much to do with income inequality.
- brenden2 7y ago
  The economy only works when everyone has money to spend. If 30% of the population is broke, that's going to cause a huge drop in economic activity. Most economic activity is driven by consumer spending.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Agreed. Current response plans won't handle 30% of the population being broke; if that happens something very different will be needed.
    - atomi 7y ago
      The way you fix that is by redistributing wealth. The government is doing this in a roundabout way by borrowing the money for a massive stimulus and recouping that money by increasing taxes on the wealthy later - likely with a Democrat administration so Republicans can maintain their rhetoric.
      - viklove 7y ago
        Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. It's the American way.
        dang 7y ago
        Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've been doing it a lot lately, unfortunately, and it's not what this place is for. In fact it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
        viklove 7y ago
        Yes yes, I understand, it makes sense that y-combinator has an imperative to protect the narrative that VC and big corps are good for America. Thoughtcrime is a serious offense, I'll just delete my account, no need to ban me. edit: Oh... seems I can't delete my account. Nice feature! Just reading through all my flagged comments... seems like calling out any sort of inequality in America or pointing out unjustifiable valuations for companies like Bird, WeWork, Uber, etc. is "flame baiting." I was half-joking when I said "thoughtcrime," but that really does seem to be my offense. It's now starting to make a lot more sense as to why HN is the way it is. Average people don't really think this way, but rather HN bans people who suggest VC wastes a lot of money on pointless ideas, or that there is a massive class divide in this country and that some people are very out of touch with how the average American lives... Guess this is just the world we live in now. There's no place for free discussion, you just have to choose which echo chamber you want to live in.
        dang 7y ago
        Plenty of HN users post about all those issues without difficulty, and the idea that HN bans people for criticizing VCs is just silly; criticizing VCs is the house special. The issue is ideological rhetoric, internet ranting, and other forms of flamebait. We don't want that because it leads to shitty flamewar threads that are all the same and drive away the best users. On HN, the idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. I know that when your comments are moderated, whether by users (through downvotes and flags) or by moderators, the temptation is to feel like you're being suppressed because of your views ("thoughtcrime" is a common term; "groupthink" is another). But if you read the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and think sincerely about the intended use of the site, you'll soon notice how your posts have been breaking that. In terms of helping YC's business interests, our imperative is simply to try to keep HN a good place for curious conversation on the internet. That's what keeps the community happy and what keeps the best users—the users who come for intellectual curiosity, not smiting enemies. A happy, high-quality community is by far the most valuable thing about HN [1], so it wouldn't make sense for us to optimize for anything else [2]. That's one reason why we moderate HN less, not more, when YC or YC startups are the topic [3]. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20yc%20business%20interests&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20optimiz&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20less%20not%20more%20yc&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- viklove 7y ago
  > but I don't see why that's a critical feature for a plan to keep the economy running well Wow, I knew HNers were "affluent," but I didn't know they were this out of touch. If the people buying the iPhone you're coding software for die of starvation or due to lack of access to medical services, where do you think your salary is going to come from? > There are many important problems that just don't have much to do with income inequality. Like what?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    You're attacking something I didn't say. It's very bad if people die of starvation or can't get medical care, and bad for much more important reasons than whether or not they'll buy things. Business closures, for example, are a problem that doesn't have much to do with income inequality. Redistributing wealth won't stop businesses from closing, nor will it produce the goods and services those businesses previously made. If we get more money but lose the goods and services we wanted to buy with that money, it's not a good trade.
    - viklove 7y ago
      > I'd love to see poor people have more money, but I don't see why that's a critical feature for a plan to keep the economy running well. That kinda is what you're saying, because if poor people don't get more money during this crisis, they're literally going to start starving. 50% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and now their paychecks have stopped, how are they going to eat? > Business closures, for example, are a problem that doesn't have much to do with income inequality. Of course they do, who do you think spends money at local businesses? If we're talking pre/post pandemic, if you give money to poor people they spend it. That means more people spending money at local restaurants in poor neighborhoods, more people spending money at daycares, more people spending money on car repairs, etc. That's how businesses flourish -- when people have money to spend on goods and services. What do billionaires do with their money? Spend it on private jets, expensive cars, and invest it in companies like Uber and WeWork? The vast majority of poor people can't even afford an Uber, so how is that helping the average American? If you give poor people spending power, then the market that supplies their needs grows because it has more customers. What should we do, prioritize the needs and wants of 1% of society, or 50%? When minimum wage stagnates, so does spending. When the stock market stagnates, does it even affect the average American? So why are we prioritizing the stock market over minimum wage? Is it maybe because of regulatory capture by the ultra-rich? The economy should not be a funnel for money to get vacuumed up by the top 1%, but 50% of all dollars end up in their hands. Why is that? Why does 1% of society get half of all wealth while the other 99% of society has to fight over the other half? How is that good for the average American? Why is it that when we're having trouble with the logistics of getting food to people, we're bailing out the airline industry? No one needs to go on fucking vacation right now, we need to get people the food and medical services they need. The only reason is because the only thing that matters in this country is how many dollars are in your pocket, and the starving poor have less than airline executives. It's pathetic.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

I'd love to see poor people have more money, but I don't see why that's a critical feature for a plan to keep the economy running well. There are many important problems that just don't have much to do with income inequality.

brenden2 7y ago
The economy only works when everyone has money to spend. If 30% of the population is broke, that's going to cause a huge drop in economic activity. Most economic activity is driven by consumer spending.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Agreed. Current response plans won't handle 30% of the population being broke; if that happens something very different will be needed.
  - atomi 7y ago
    The way you fix that is by redistributing wealth. The government is doing this in a roundabout way by borrowing the money for a massive stimulus and recouping that money by increasing taxes on the wealthy later - likely with a Democrat administration so Republicans can maintain their rhetoric.
    - viklove 7y ago
      Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. It's the American way.
      - dang 7y ago
        Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've been doing it a lot lately, unfortunately, and it's not what this place is for. In fact it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
        viklove 7y ago
        Yes yes, I understand, it makes sense that y-combinator has an imperative to protect the narrative that VC and big corps are good for America. Thoughtcrime is a serious offense, I'll just delete my account, no need to ban me. edit: Oh... seems I can't delete my account. Nice feature! Just reading through all my flagged comments... seems like calling out any sort of inequality in America or pointing out unjustifiable valuations for companies like Bird, WeWork, Uber, etc. is "flame baiting." I was half-joking when I said "thoughtcrime," but that really does seem to be my offense. It's now starting to make a lot more sense as to why HN is the way it is. Average people don't really think this way, but rather HN bans people who suggest VC wastes a lot of money on pointless ideas, or that there is a massive class divide in this country and that some people are very out of touch with how the average American lives... Guess this is just the world we live in now. There's no place for free discussion, you just have to choose which echo chamber you want to live in.
        dang 7y ago
        Plenty of HN users post about all those issues without difficulty, and the idea that HN bans people for criticizing VCs is just silly; criticizing VCs is the house special. The issue is ideological rhetoric, internet ranting, and other forms of flamebait. We don't want that because it leads to shitty flamewar threads that are all the same and drive away the best users. On HN, the idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. I know that when your comments are moderated, whether by users (through downvotes and flags) or by moderators, the temptation is to feel like you're being suppressed because of your views ("thoughtcrime" is a common term; "groupthink" is another). But if you read the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and think sincerely about the intended use of the site, you'll soon notice how your posts have been breaking that. In terms of helping YC's business interests, our imperative is simply to try to keep HN a good place for curious conversation on the internet. That's what keeps the community happy and what keeps the best users—the users who come for intellectual curiosity, not smiting enemies. A happy, high-quality community is by far the most valuable thing about HN [1], so it wouldn't make sense for us to optimize for anything else [2]. That's one reason why we moderate HN less, not more, when YC or YC startups are the topic [3]. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20yc%20business%20interests&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20curiosity%20optimiz&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20moderate%20less%20not%20more%20yc&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
viklove 7y ago
> but I don't see why that's a critical feature for a plan to keep the economy running well Wow, I knew HNers were "affluent," but I didn't know they were this out of touch. If the people buying the iPhone you're coding software for die of starvation or due to lack of access to medical services, where do you think your salary is going to come from? > There are many important problems that just don't have much to do with income inequality. Like what?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  You're attacking something I didn't say. It's very bad if people die of starvation or can't get medical care, and bad for much more important reasons than whether or not they'll buy things. Business closures, for example, are a problem that doesn't have much to do with income inequality. Redistributing wealth won't stop businesses from closing, nor will it produce the goods and services those businesses previously made. If we get more money but lose the goods and services we wanted to buy with that money, it's not a good trade.
  - viklove 7y ago
    > I'd love to see poor people have more money, but I don't see why that's a critical feature for a plan to keep the economy running well. That kinda is what you're saying, because if poor people don't get more money during this crisis, they're literally going to start starving. 50% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and now their paychecks have stopped, how are they going to eat? > Business closures, for example, are a problem that doesn't have much to do with income inequality. Of course they do, who do you think spends money at local businesses? If we're talking pre/post pandemic, if you give money to poor people they spend it. That means more people spending money at local restaurants in poor neighborhoods, more people spending money at daycares, more people spending money on car repairs, etc. That's how businesses flourish -- when people have money to spend on goods and services. What do billionaires do with their money? Spend it on private jets, expensive cars, and invest it in companies like Uber and WeWork? The vast majority of poor people can't even afford an Uber, so how is that helping the average American? If you give poor people spending power, then the market that supplies their needs grows because it has more customers. What should we do, prioritize the needs and wants of 1% of society, or 50%? When minimum wage stagnates, so does spending. When the stock market stagnates, does it even affect the average American? So why are we prioritizing the stock market over minimum wage? Is it maybe because of regulatory capture by the ultra-rich? The economy should not be a funnel for money to get vacuumed up by the top 1%, but 50% of all dollars end up in their hands. Why is that? Why does 1% of society get half of all wealth while the other 99% of society has to fight over the other half? How is that good for the average American? Why is it that when we're having trouble with the logistics of getting food to people, we're bailing out the airline industry? No one needs to go on fucking vacation right now, we need to get people the food and medical services they need. The only reason is because the only thing that matters in this country is how many dollars are in your pocket, and the starving poor have less than airline executives. It's pathetic.