3 ms·

The two big problems with this idea, IMO, are: 1. You're heavily disincentivizing people from doing their most to earn more money. Assuming you buy into capita

by edanm 5y ago

The two big problems with this idea, IMO, are: 1. You're heavily disincentivizing people from doing their most to earn more money. Assuming you buy into capitalism in the first place (which I do), the result of this is generally worse for society. Less new inventions, less new medicines, less new technologies, etc. 2. The second problem is more philosophical, but... what right does society have to take away someone's property, which they presumably worked hard for? People often work hard to give to their children (hence point 1 above), what makes you think it's a legitimate use of the force of government to take everything from them? Most people think it's fairly unfair.

muzani 5y ago
Capitalism does a lot to kill motivation on the right things. No matter how hard I work, I will never make as much money as some guy who sells cosmetics on Instagram. In Malaysia, we have architects quitting their jobs to become bakers, lawyers quitting to sell noodles. There's also the question on whether inventions, medicine, technology are what we should be optimizing for? Depression and mental health are high despite all this, probably worse in wealthier countries than poorer ones. The real cost to inequality is that it correlates with political polarization. Countries that are more equal tend to have politics that agree on more things. Political instability is one problem, but it also leads to distrust of the government, leading to the anti-police and anti-vaccine movements we've been seeing lately.
- trcarney 5y ago
  How do you know what the "right things" are without markets? If architects are quitting their jobs to become bakers, it's because society values the baker more than the architect and therefore the person can make more as a baker. If enough architects quit, you will see the incentives switch and more and more people will begin training to become architects. >There's also the question on whether inventions, medicine, technology are what we should be optimizing for? Only the whole economy can accurately decide what we should optimize for. If you try to centrally plan an economy, it will fail because you remove pricing from the equation which is a signal to where resources should be allocated. For things that may not have a current market, this is what privately funded research and charities should be used for. >The real cost to inequality is that it correlates with political polarization This is only an issue because for some reason we have decided we need these huge government bureaucracies to run our day to day lives. Without this, peoples politics wouldn't matter. As for the anti-police movement's, this is manly due to people starting to realize the only thing the police protect is the State. The anti-vaccine movement hasn't grown. The government and the media have changed the definition of anti-vaccine. If you don't believe the government should or has the right to implement vaccine mandates on the populace you are anti-vaccine. If you aren't sure there is evidence the vaccine slows the spread of COVID, you are anti-vaccine. So basically the government and the media have labeled anyone who is unsure about this specific vaccine to be the same as the person who believes essential oils will heal everything and that vaccines in general cause autism.

by edanm 5y ago

muzani 5y ago

Capitalism does a lot to kill motivation on the right things. No matter how hard I work, I will never make as much money as some guy who sells cosmetics on Instagram. In Malaysia, we have architects quitting their jobs to become bakers, lawyers quitting to sell noodles. There's also the question on whether inventions, medicine, technology are what we should be optimizing for? Depression and mental health are high despite all this, probably worse in wealthier countries than poorer ones. The real cost to inequality is that it correlates with political polarization. Countries that are more equal tend to have politics that agree on more things. Political instability is one problem, but it also leads to distrust of the government, leading to the anti-police and anti-vaccine movements we've been seeing lately.

trcarney 5y ago
How do you know what the "right things" are without markets? If architects are quitting their jobs to become bakers, it's because society values the baker more than the architect and therefore the person can make more as a baker. If enough architects quit, you will see the incentives switch and more and more people will begin training to become architects. >There's also the question on whether inventions, medicine, technology are what we should be optimizing for? Only the whole economy can accurately decide what we should optimize for. If you try to centrally plan an economy, it will fail because you remove pricing from the equation which is a signal to where resources should be allocated. For things that may not have a current market, this is what privately funded research and charities should be used for. >The real cost to inequality is that it correlates with political polarization This is only an issue because for some reason we have decided we need these huge government bureaucracies to run our day to day lives. Without this, peoples politics wouldn't matter. As for the anti-police movement's, this is manly due to people starting to realize the only thing the police protect is the State. The anti-vaccine movement hasn't grown. The government and the media have changed the definition of anti-vaccine. If you don't believe the government should or has the right to implement vaccine mandates on the populace you are anti-vaccine. If you aren't sure there is evidence the vaccine slows the spread of COVID, you are anti-vaccine. So basically the government and the media have labeled anyone who is unsure about this specific vaccine to be the same as the person who believes essential oils will heal everything and that vaccines in general cause autism.