4 ms·

If history has told us anything, we can be sure that privileged people will rationalize wealth inequality or just completely deny it all the way to revolution.

If history has told us anything, we can be sure that privileged people will rationalize wealth inequality or just completely deny it all the way to revolution. "It's complex", "It's just natural", "It's actually going better for poor folks today than before", "Yes, there were no homeless here 20 years ago, but here's the reason why it's actually a sign that it's good thing"

simonh 4y ago
That's reasonable, but on the flip side maybe it is complex and natural, and maybe a degree of inequality is inevitable for a well functioning economy. However I do believe there is such a thing as too much inequality. I think the aim should be to ensure that the resources in society are well managed towards the common good, whoever is managing them whether it's private individuals or government bureaucrats. And inevitably it's going to be some combination of both. I think there is a reasonable argument that the balance has shifted too many resources into the hands of too few. That bad because even if those few are good at managing resources (managing investments, running companies, etc) you want to make sure that up and coming talent has a chance. You don't want incumbent economic power to be able to block competition too much. I have no problem with successful entrepreneurs building valuable companies that provide useful goods and services, employing lots of people. Having wealth in the form of a controlling interest in a company you are running well is fine by me. I have worked for such companies much of my life, doing work I'm proud of while clothing and feeding my family. It's rent seeking activities and inherited or politically captured wealth gained through no personal merit that are problematic and I think there's too much of that going on at the moment. But having worked for a billionaire that worked his arse off doing fantastic work that benefited millions of people, I think the current trend that billionaire = bad is too simplistic.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  > It's rent seeking activities and inherited wealth gained through no personal merit that are problematic and I think there's too much of that going on at the moment. But having worked for a billionaire that worked his arse off doing fantastic work that benefited millions of people, I think the current trend that billionaire = bad is too simplistic. This. Unfortunately the atmosphere in Europe (or at least Sweden where I live) seems to be the exact opposite: nobody's upset about our own hereditary oligarchs (which put the Russian ones to shame), but they are screaming about Elon Musk...
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    Your counterexample to a hereditary oligarch is Elon 'Parents Owned an Apartheid Emerald Mine' Musk? The Elon who used a bullshit single lane car tunnel to cynically deflect the conversation away from public transport? The Elon who has been caught censoring left wing outlets on Twitter? That Elon Musk?
    - mypastself 4y ago
      You’ve made three separate claims here. I’d love to see the sources for the first two, at least.
      - simonh 4y ago
        The first is just a fact, you can check it out on his Wikipedia page. The second is a somewhat cynical take on Musk's Hyperloop idea which he didn't pursue but ironically would have been a form of public transport. Musk doesn't seem to have a problem with public transport in principle, he just thinks that currently it sucks and there are ways to make transport generally cheaper and better. Many of the projects his Boring Company is involved in are public transport.
        mypastself 4y ago
        The Wikipedia page mentions Zambia, which was not under Apartheid to my knowledge. That’s an important distinction, and the original claim is factually incorrect. Wikipedia’s source also seems to be an interview with Errol, who claims to have had a part-stake in a mine. We don’t know how big. If someone owns some shares in Apple, saying they’re the company’s “owner” would be misleading, even if they made a good profit.
        simonh 4y ago
        >The Wikipedia page mentions Zambia, which was not under Apartheid to my knowledge. That’s an important distinction, and the original claim is factually incorrect. Would you say that the fact it was in Zambia is actually material to the point the poster was making about him coming from a wealthy background, or was it an incidental detail?
- mandmandam 4y ago
  > maybe it is complex and natural It isn't though. We see these people buying news outlets, bribing politicians, outright owning politicians, owning judges, attacking organizations that protect the environment or help reduce inequality. We see them getting away with rape and murder. We see them creating and exploiting tax loopholes. We see them running monopolies and then bribing institutions that were supposed to hold them accountable in full sight. I'm glad you're alright Jack. That's super for you that your company is run well - though I bet if you named the company, we could all point to some skeletons. Even so - best to peek outside your bubble before defending the class that's been waging war on the planet. That billionaire you're defending probably pays a lower tax rate than you do. That's because his class paid to make things that way, with concerted effort, over years. Not much natural about it.
  - ip26 4y ago
    Some degree of inequality is. You’re talking about gross inequality. The whole capitalist system requires the existence of some inequality; you are incentivized to work hard to better your lot. If your lot is not allowed to get better (perfect equality), why bother?
    - Rury 4y ago
      I don't follow this reasoning. Your lot can get better with perfect equality, the benefit/effort ratio is just different than a system with inequality. The real problem is it's just easier to benefit at the cost of your neighbor, and hence people prefer inequality when it benefits them.
  - simonh 4y ago
    I don't care about class, I care about individual people. If you're going to advocate punishing a class because of the actions of a few individuals you happen to categorise them with, I'm out. I see banks fined billions for money laundering, VW execs going to jail for fraudulent emissions cheating, an investment banker and his girlfriend going to jail for sex trafficking, a bunch of EU politicians being rounded up for corruption. Is the system perfect? No, but I don't expect any system to be. How are you going to make sure the system you want is immune from human faults. What's the secret? The billionaire I was talking about Mo Ibrahim. He wrote a program for planning cellular radio networks and built a company around it starting from his dining room called MSI, which is where I worked for him. He then went on to found Celtel. He saw what was happening in Europe and realised that cellular radio could be a transformative technology, that could help Africa jump forward technically much more cheaply than traditional wired telecoms of the time. He runs a charity focused on promoting responsible leadership and democratic values in Africa. Genuinely one of the nicest guys I have ever met, and if you gave me a billion pounds and said I could give it to a government bureaucracy or Mo Inrahim, I'd give it to Mo. I trust him to know how it could do the most good, whether that's helping people in need, or building companies that employ people and provide valuable services, or develop great technology the world needs.
fallingknife 4y ago
If current experience has told me anything, they will whine endlessly about inequality. Of course I mean the inequality between themselves and the super rich. They will completely ignore the inequality that actually matters. That between themselves and the working class.
WeylandYutani 4y ago
This is not true. Northern European countries are completely and unreservedly dedicated to minimizing inequality. Vast resources are spent on subsidised housing and a social safety net.
- elktown 4y ago
  That's pretty much my point. Those concessions was fought and won by the labour movement under the threat of revolution. Before that workers was just as dirt poor and exploited as in any other class-based society. Now that the threat of revolution has been largely removed, in addition to a general decline for the labour movements (in more ways than just membership numbers), they are being promptly reversed - Sweden being one of the more obvious example of this trend: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2022/12/21/the-swedish-model-is-breaking-down_6008602_143.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2022/12/21/the-swed...

simonh 4y ago

That's reasonable, but on the flip side maybe it is complex and natural, and maybe a degree of inequality is inevitable for a well functioning economy. However I do believe there is such a thing as too much inequality. I think the aim should be to ensure that the resources in society are well managed towards the common good, whoever is managing them whether it's private individuals or government bureaucrats. And inevitably it's going to be some combination of both. I think there is a reasonable argument that the balance has shifted too many resources into the hands of too few. That bad because even if those few are good at managing resources (managing investments, running companies, etc) you want to make sure that up and coming talent has a chance. You don't want incumbent economic power to be able to block competition too much. I have no problem with successful entrepreneurs building valuable companies that provide useful goods and services, employing lots of people. Having wealth in the form of a controlling interest in a company you are running well is fine by me. I have worked for such companies much of my life, doing work I'm proud of while clothing and feeding my family. It's rent seeking activities and inherited or politically captured wealth gained through no personal merit that are problematic and I think there's too much of that going on at the moment. But having worked for a billionaire that worked his arse off doing fantastic work that benefited millions of people, I think the current trend that billionaire = bad is too simplistic.

bjornsing 4y ago
> It's rent seeking activities and inherited wealth gained through no personal merit that are problematic and I think there's too much of that going on at the moment. But having worked for a billionaire that worked his arse off doing fantastic work that benefited millions of people, I think the current trend that billionaire = bad is too simplistic. This. Unfortunately the atmosphere in Europe (or at least Sweden where I live) seems to be the exact opposite: nobody's upset about our own hereditary oligarchs (which put the Russian ones to shame), but they are screaming about Elon Musk...
- mandmandam 4y ago
  Your counterexample to a hereditary oligarch is Elon 'Parents Owned an Apartheid Emerald Mine' Musk? The Elon who used a bullshit single lane car tunnel to cynically deflect the conversation away from public transport? The Elon who has been caught censoring left wing outlets on Twitter? That Elon Musk?
  - mypastself 4y ago
    You’ve made three separate claims here. I’d love to see the sources for the first two, at least.
    - simonh 4y ago
      The first is just a fact, you can check it out on his Wikipedia page. The second is a somewhat cynical take on Musk's Hyperloop idea which he didn't pursue but ironically would have been a form of public transport. Musk doesn't seem to have a problem with public transport in principle, he just thinks that currently it sucks and there are ways to make transport generally cheaper and better. Many of the projects his Boring Company is involved in are public transport.
      - mypastself 4y ago
        The Wikipedia page mentions Zambia, which was not under Apartheid to my knowledge. That’s an important distinction, and the original claim is factually incorrect. Wikipedia’s source also seems to be an interview with Errol, who claims to have had a part-stake in a mine. We don’t know how big. If someone owns some shares in Apple, saying they’re the company’s “owner” would be misleading, even if they made a good profit.
        simonh 4y ago
        >The Wikipedia page mentions Zambia, which was not under Apartheid to my knowledge. That’s an important distinction, and the original claim is factually incorrect. Would you say that the fact it was in Zambia is actually material to the point the poster was making about him coming from a wealthy background, or was it an incidental detail?
mandmandam 4y ago
> maybe it is complex and natural It isn't though. We see these people buying news outlets, bribing politicians, outright owning politicians, owning judges, attacking organizations that protect the environment or help reduce inequality. We see them getting away with rape and murder. We see them creating and exploiting tax loopholes. We see them running monopolies and then bribing institutions that were supposed to hold them accountable in full sight. I'm glad you're alright Jack. That's super for you that your company is run well - though I bet if you named the company, we could all point to some skeletons. Even so - best to peek outside your bubble before defending the class that's been waging war on the planet. That billionaire you're defending probably pays a lower tax rate than you do. That's because his class paid to make things that way, with concerted effort, over years. Not much natural about it.
- ip26 4y ago
  Some degree of inequality is. You’re talking about gross inequality. The whole capitalist system requires the existence of some inequality; you are incentivized to work hard to better your lot. If your lot is not allowed to get better (perfect equality), why bother?
  - Rury 4y ago
    I don't follow this reasoning. Your lot can get better with perfect equality, the benefit/effort ratio is just different than a system with inequality. The real problem is it's just easier to benefit at the cost of your neighbor, and hence people prefer inequality when it benefits them.
- simonh 4y ago
  I don't care about class, I care about individual people. If you're going to advocate punishing a class because of the actions of a few individuals you happen to categorise them with, I'm out. I see banks fined billions for money laundering, VW execs going to jail for fraudulent emissions cheating, an investment banker and his girlfriend going to jail for sex trafficking, a bunch of EU politicians being rounded up for corruption. Is the system perfect? No, but I don't expect any system to be. How are you going to make sure the system you want is immune from human faults. What's the secret? The billionaire I was talking about Mo Ibrahim. He wrote a program for planning cellular radio networks and built a company around it starting from his dining room called MSI, which is where I worked for him. He then went on to found Celtel. He saw what was happening in Europe and realised that cellular radio could be a transformative technology, that could help Africa jump forward technically much more cheaply than traditional wired telecoms of the time. He runs a charity focused on promoting responsible leadership and democratic values in Africa. Genuinely one of the nicest guys I have ever met, and if you gave me a billion pounds and said I could give it to a government bureaucracy or Mo Inrahim, I'd give it to Mo. I trust him to know how it could do the most good, whether that's helping people in need, or building companies that employ people and provide valuable services, or develop great technology the world needs.

fallingknife 4y ago

If current experience has told me anything, they will whine endlessly about inequality. Of course I mean the inequality between themselves and the super rich. They will completely ignore the inequality that actually matters. That between themselves and the working class.

WeylandYutani 4y ago

This is not true. Northern European countries are completely and unreservedly dedicated to minimizing inequality. Vast resources are spent on subsidised housing and a social safety net.

elktown 4y ago
That's pretty much my point. Those concessions was fought and won by the labour movement under the threat of revolution. Before that workers was just as dirt poor and exploited as in any other class-based society. Now that the threat of revolution has been largely removed, in addition to a general decline for the labour movements (in more ways than just membership numbers), they are being promptly reversed - Sweden being one of the more obvious example of this trend: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2022/12/21/the-swedish-model-is-breaking-down_6008602_143.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2022/12/21/the-swed...