4 ms·

I usually defend capitalism, and I read and mostly agreed with PGs wealth essay. But having seen pictures of how the poor live in the US (I am not from the US),

by Tichy 15y ago

I usually defend capitalism, and I read and mostly agreed with PGs wealth essay. But having seen pictures of how the poor live in the US (I am not from the US), this just feels wrong. How much wealth do you really need? It is one thing if everybody lives a happy live, and some people live in slightly bigger houses by the seaside. It is another if lots of people live in squalor at the same time. I think some things should be rewarded. If you find a cure for cancer, you deserve to be rich. But even then, maybe a couple of million $ would be enough, even if what you gave to society is worth trillions. Perhaps related: Joel Spolsky's article on how to compensate an intern who created a lot of value for the company. Can't find the article atm, but I think he ended up giving hardly anything. Cancer researchers are just interns of society, when seen from space.

HSO 15y ago
I agree with your sentiment but ask how questions such as "how much is enough" can be answered? I could imagine an arrangement analogous to "floating currency rates" where you define a band within which the market price can fluctuate. Progressive taxation coupled with social safety net can have this effect if taken to its combined extreme. But how realistic is that sort of thing in today's monetized society? On a tangent, I find it curious how we all seem to have been brainwashed somehow into taking certain assumptions _automatically_ for valid that then frame the entire discussion. I mean, where does the connection between "what you gave to society" and your financial profit come from? It's not at all clear to me, on second thought, that they are connected so closely. Also, what exactly does it mean to "give to society" when your (more neutrally formulated) net effect on your environment is determined not just by "effort" but also by randomness and by the very environment you interact with? Finally, it's not clear to me that everything can be quantified (in the special sense of putting a competitive market value on it). The concept of value is, I suspect, a strict superset of "monetary value", and it's important we understand (as a society) better what are the special conditions under which a mapping to "money space" makes sense. Big, hairy questions, sure, but to give a concrete example for the last one: Since when does it make sense that the "performance" of museums or orchestras is measured in how much tickets they sell? (Incidentally, see how far today's terminology is off?) Yes, I can't pull a better answer out of my hat right now but I _am_ quite sure this question itself is framed in the wrong way because we already presuppose the applicability of concepts like "competitive exchange" and "valuation". Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in competitive markets, private property and responsibility, and entrepreneurship. The thing is, I feel more and more that this type of thinking can only be applied to a subset of political issues, it is not a universal acid. And I just got reminded of how deep these issues are because even in your post, which goes generally in the same direction I am currently thinking, I can see certain ideas "embedded" already.
learc83 15y ago
I'd be interested to know where you saw these "pictures". There's a group of people who like to paint the picture that the US is devolving in to a Dickensian nightmare. There is always room for improvement, but as someone who lives here and has traveled extensively I don't think you can say that "lots of people live in squalor". Sure, we have 300+ million people, so you can find people who are homeless and living on the street, but that would still be the case even if the government offered unlimited free housing.
- Tichy 15y ago
  I saw them on German TV, and OK, maybe also in Michael Moore's movie (not sure, I watched it recently but I am foggy about the details). For example there are pictures of the tent cities that emerge. To be honest lots of stories from the USA sound disturbing, but then again I can not claim to know every corner of Germany. Perhaps there are lots of people living in squalor here, too.
  - learc83 15y ago
    I have traveled very extensively through the US (still, there are plenty of places I haven't been). From my experience, you'd have to look very hard to find what I'd classify as a tent city. That being said I know where one is and I've been there working with a local church organization. It's in the woods behind a local shopping center, and at any given time there are about 15-20 people living there. The church helps out the best they can, but the vast majority of the men living there wouldn't leave if they were offered free housing. Most of them have mental issues, and the only way to really get them out would be involuntary commitment. In short, it's ridiculous to find a tent city somewhere, film it, and use it to claim that America is devolving into Calcutta.
    - malyk 15y ago
      It's not devolving into Calcutta for sure, but certainly a nation with the wealth that we have can (and I'd argue should) provide a much higher standard of living for the members of society on the lowest rung of the ladder. If not by direct assistance then by structuring society so that the people at the bottom don't bare an unreasonable amount of the burden. (I'm thinking restructuring payroll taxes, tax vouchers for necessities, etc.)

by Tichy 15y ago

HSO 15y ago

I agree with your sentiment but ask how questions such as "how much is enough" can be answered? I could imagine an arrangement analogous to "floating currency rates" where you define a band within which the market price can fluctuate. Progressive taxation coupled with social safety net can have this effect if taken to its combined extreme. But how realistic is that sort of thing in today's monetized society? On a tangent, I find it curious how we all seem to have been brainwashed somehow into taking certain assumptions _automatically_ for valid that then frame the entire discussion. I mean, where does the connection between "what you gave to society" and your financial profit come from? It's not at all clear to me, on second thought, that they are connected so closely. Also, what exactly does it mean to "give to society" when your (more neutrally formulated) net effect on your environment is determined not just by "effort" but also by randomness and by the very environment you interact with? Finally, it's not clear to me that everything can be quantified (in the special sense of putting a competitive market value on it). The concept of value is, I suspect, a strict superset of "monetary value", and it's important we understand (as a society) better what are the special conditions under which a mapping to "money space" makes sense. Big, hairy questions, sure, but to give a concrete example for the last one: Since when does it make sense that the "performance" of museums or orchestras is measured in how much tickets they sell? (Incidentally, see how far today's terminology is off?) Yes, I can't pull a better answer out of my hat right now but I _am_ quite sure this question itself is framed in the wrong way because we already presuppose the applicability of concepts like "competitive exchange" and "valuation". Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in competitive markets, private property and responsibility, and entrepreneurship. The thing is, I feel more and more that this type of thinking can only be applied to a subset of political issues, it is not a universal acid. And I just got reminded of how deep these issues are because even in your post, which goes generally in the same direction I am currently thinking, I can see certain ideas "embedded" already.

learc83 15y ago

I'd be interested to know where you saw these "pictures". There's a group of people who like to paint the picture that the US is devolving in to a Dickensian nightmare. There is always room for improvement, but as someone who lives here and has traveled extensively I don't think you can say that "lots of people live in squalor". Sure, we have 300+ million people, so you can find people who are homeless and living on the street, but that would still be the case even if the government offered unlimited free housing.

Tichy 15y ago
I saw them on German TV, and OK, maybe also in Michael Moore's movie (not sure, I watched it recently but I am foggy about the details). For example there are pictures of the tent cities that emerge. To be honest lots of stories from the USA sound disturbing, but then again I can not claim to know every corner of Germany. Perhaps there are lots of people living in squalor here, too.
- learc83 15y ago
  I have traveled very extensively through the US (still, there are plenty of places I haven't been). From my experience, you'd have to look very hard to find what I'd classify as a tent city. That being said I know where one is and I've been there working with a local church organization. It's in the woods behind a local shopping center, and at any given time there are about 15-20 people living there. The church helps out the best they can, but the vast majority of the men living there wouldn't leave if they were offered free housing. Most of them have mental issues, and the only way to really get them out would be involuntary commitment. In short, it's ridiculous to find a tent city somewhere, film it, and use it to claim that America is devolving into Calcutta.
  - malyk 15y ago
    It's not devolving into Calcutta for sure, but certainly a nation with the wealth that we have can (and I'd argue should) provide a much higher standard of living for the members of society on the lowest rung of the ladder. If not by direct assistance then by structuring society so that the people at the bottom don't bare an unreasonable amount of the burden. (I'm thinking restructuring payroll taxes, tax vouchers for necessities, etc.)