4 ms·

Really? This is like saying “All poor people are criminals” This is the sort of thinking you need to leave behind in childhood. There is no way a reasonable g

Really? This is like saying “All poor people are criminals” This is the sort of thinking you need to leave behind in childhood. There is no way a reasonable grown adult can hold this opinion seriously.

the_only_law 4y ago
> There is no way a reasonable grown adult can hold this opinion seriously. Sounds like you need to meet more adults unfortunately.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I’ve met a lot of adults. I find many of them struggle making the mental leap from “this is structurally uncommon” to “and yet it’s not impossible”.
- yeasurebut 4y ago
  Their username is plagiarized from a kids fantasy story and they switch off at the sight of uncomfortable language. Not much there to take serious their claims of being more adult than others.
  - schwartzworld 4y ago
    When will the laws change to finally put a stop to vicious plagiarism of usernames?
efficax 4y ago
i’m a grown adult and i agree with the argument. i also think there’s no such thing as a good cop, or a good professional assassin.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throw0101c 4y ago
The problem is not the billionaire-as-an-individual, but the billionaire-as-a-signifier-of-concentration-of-wealth: > If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation. * aninhumer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 Now, perfect equality is probably equality as bad, as there's no (extrinsic) incentive to make things better and be (externally) rewarded for it, but the US is back at the point of being back in the Gilded Age: * https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/forget-the-1 https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/f... * https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/wealth-becoming-more-concentrated-richest-families https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/weal... Billionaires are "bad" because they signify concentration of wealth/power that can skew the working of the democratic process where each citizen has an equal say in the direction a country should go.
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  I think this take hits on a good point worth exploring. I've also noticed that people generally fall into these two groups and end up talking past each other when ever this topic comes up - myself included. I often find myself frustrated by the "billionaires are bad" argument because I interpret it as an argument against rewarding performance and productivity. It is objectively true that different individuals have differing ability and desire to contribute to society. Incentivizing and rewarding productivity over idleness will maximise productivity. On the other side, I suspect there are those who are frustrated by the argument that "billionaires are not bad" because they observe the huge levels of inequality that currently exist and conclude that this can't possibly be an efficient use of resources. I think there is a middle ground. Clearly, some level of differential reward structure in society is necessary to maximise innovation and productivity. But perhaps the current levels of inequality are also sub-optimal. However, I don't think that wealth re-distribution (taxes, etc) is the right answer. That seems to be penalising the player, not the game. Perhaps part of the solution might involve reducing barriers to entry so that more people can participate in the market. It's also worth highlighting that most wealth is created, not transferred. Most billionaires (in a free market) become so by creating valuable businesses and producing value. If Jeff Bezos never created Amazon and never became a billionaire, we'd all be poorer, not richer.

the_only_law 4y ago

> There is no way a reasonable grown adult can hold this opinion seriously. Sounds like you need to meet more adults unfortunately.

sokoloff 4y ago
I’ve met a lot of adults. I find many of them struggle making the mental leap from “this is structurally uncommon” to “and yet it’s not impossible”.
yeasurebut 4y ago
Their username is plagiarized from a kids fantasy story and they switch off at the sight of uncomfortable language. Not much there to take serious their claims of being more adult than others.
- schwartzworld 4y ago
  When will the laws change to finally put a stop to vicious plagiarism of usernames?

efficax 4y ago

i’m a grown adult and i agree with the argument. i also think there’s no such thing as a good cop, or a good professional assassin.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

throw0101c 4y ago

The problem is not the billionaire-as-an-individual, but the billionaire-as-a-signifier-of-concentration-of-wealth: > If we suppose that the goal of society is to produce the greatest utility, and that the utility wealth provides an individual is sub-linear (i.e. twice as much money makes you less than twice as happy), then inequality is inefficient resource allocation. * aninhumer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14505342 Now, perfect equality is probably equality as bad, as there's no (extrinsic) incentive to make things better and be (externally) rewarded for it, but the US is back at the point of being back in the Gilded Age: * https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/forget-the-1 https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/f... * https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/wealth-becoming-more-concentrated-richest-families https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/december/weal... Billionaires are "bad" because they signify concentration of wealth/power that can skew the working of the democratic process where each citizen has an equal say in the direction a country should go.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago
I think this take hits on a good point worth exploring. I've also noticed that people generally fall into these two groups and end up talking past each other when ever this topic comes up - myself included. I often find myself frustrated by the "billionaires are bad" argument because I interpret it as an argument against rewarding performance and productivity. It is objectively true that different individuals have differing ability and desire to contribute to society. Incentivizing and rewarding productivity over idleness will maximise productivity. On the other side, I suspect there are those who are frustrated by the argument that "billionaires are not bad" because they observe the huge levels of inequality that currently exist and conclude that this can't possibly be an efficient use of resources. I think there is a middle ground. Clearly, some level of differential reward structure in society is necessary to maximise innovation and productivity. But perhaps the current levels of inequality are also sub-optimal. However, I don't think that wealth re-distribution (taxes, etc) is the right answer. That seems to be penalising the player, not the game. Perhaps part of the solution might involve reducing barriers to entry so that more people can participate in the market. It's also worth highlighting that most wealth is created, not transferred. Most billionaires (in a free market) become so by creating valuable businesses and producing value. If Jeff Bezos never created Amazon and never became a billionaire, we'd all be poorer, not richer.