4 ms·

> Lifting one group up is almost always at the expense of other groups, which is isomorphic to punishment. Not necessarily. Life is not a zero sum game. Who i

by mcv 3y ago

> Lifting one group up is almost always at the expense of other groups, which is isomorphic to punishment. Not necessarily. Life is not a zero sum game. Who is hurt by better funding for schools in poor neighbourhoods? Who is hurt by training cops to not shoot first and ask questions later? Who is hurt by encouraging home ownership by black people?

notSupplied 3y ago
College admissions at elite universities, what this SCOTUS case is about, is zero sum.
sokoloff 3y ago
> Who is hurt by better funding for schools in poor neighbourhoods? Whatever that money would otherwise have been spent on is harming the recipient of that now foregone benefit. If you raise taxes to do it, taxpayers are harmed. > Who is hurt by encouraging home ownership by black people? If home ownership is a good thing, whoever would have otherwise bought those marginal houses is harmed.
- Denzel 3y ago
  You missed the part where it’s not a zero-sum game. If you’re interested in the economic concepts behind why an economy is a positive-sum game in an open system, look up: production possibilities frontier (PPF) and comparative advantage. An economy would become zero-sum if we ran up against the limits of the universe. Until then, rest assured that opportunity can grow for both sides in a transaction.
  - chii 3y ago
    The whole economy is indeed nonzero sum, but the topic is not the entire economy, but allocation of limited dollars between different groups. It is zero sum here in this limited context.
    - mcv 3y ago
      Investing in education has a very high ROI. Investing in better education in poor neighbourhoods will actually save you money in the long run. The fact that that is not happening is what's really hurting people.
- namaria 3y ago
  >Whatever that money would otherwise have been spent on is harming the recipient of that now foregone benefit. This would only make sense if the amount of welfare for rich people weren't outrageously high in the form of regressive income taxation, non meaningful wealth taxation, corporate tax breaks and subsidies, loan forgiveness programs for business owners etc etc all that on top of a nearly trillion dollar budget for military kit that sees what 40% usage?
  - hokumguru 3y ago
    We actually spend more per year on paying off our national debt, which has been used to fund many social programs, than our military. Great and all but we really can’t afford any of this.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Paying interest on our national debt is more accurate than paying off. There’s no practical sense in which we’re paying it off nor even paying it down.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      The national debt hasn't really risen because of social programs. It has primarily risen because of military spending.
      - junofan 3y ago
        That’s strange because the 2022 deficit alone exceeds defense spending by a factor of ~2. DoD spending was up ~10% since 2012, which social security spending was up ~50%.
        HWR_14 3y ago
        Social Security spending is from a dedicated levy, which generates more income than it costs. In 2012, the US was fighting two wars, so the fact that DoD spending didn't go down by 2022 is indicative of the problem. It's also misleading to use the few years when there was substantial pandemic related spending as indicative of the US's normal spending habits.
- fugalfervor 3y ago
  > If you raise taxes to do it, taxpayers are harmed. This is not true. If I, a taxpayer, want my taxes raised for the sake of extending equality to a historically and currently oppressed group, then I am not harmed. If you, a taxpayer, disagree with the notion of restorative justice, I posit that your overall happiness would be helped more by empathy and less by "lower taxes".
  - seneca 3y ago
    > This is not true. If I, a taxpayer, want my taxes raised for the sake of extending equality to a historically and currently oppressed group, then I am not harmed. If you want your money used to pay for reparations you can donate to a charity with aims aligned with that desire. No one is arguing about what you do with your money. > If you, a taxpayer, disagree with the notion of restorative justice, I posit that your overall happiness would be helped more by empathy and less by "lower taxes". A functioning society requires accepting other people have different priorities and values from yours.
    - fugalfervor 3y ago
      > If you want your money used to pay for reparations you can donate to a charity with aims aligned with that desire. No one is arguing about what you do with your money. I can also advocate for the state to do it on my behalf. I prefer that solution, because a larger amount of resources can be allocated. > A functioning society requires accepting other people have different priorities and values from yours. I accept this, but the values expressed disturb me.
      - tristor 3y ago
        > I can also advocate for the state to do it on my behalf. I prefer that solution, because a larger amount of resources can be allocated. The only reason a larger amount of resources can be allocated is because you are advocating for using state violence to force people who don’t agree with you to also pay for your ideas. That’s what taxes are, fundamentally.
    - 3y ago
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  This is a very similar argument to "piracy is a moral ill because it deprives corporations and artists of money that would otherwise be spent on them." And it falls apart for similar reasons. When more people are capable of buying houses, more houses are built to meet the demand.
antisthenes 3y ago
> Not necessarily. Life is not a zero sum game. Life is a zero-sum game in way more ways than it is not, especially on the scale of a typical human life-span or important decisions that people make. This is a bad trope that just won't die. In fact you can see a lot of negative outcomes in spheres like housing and medicine precisely because of zero-sum issues.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by mcv 3y ago

notSupplied 3y ago

College admissions at elite universities, what this SCOTUS case is about, is zero sum.

sokoloff 3y ago

> Who is hurt by better funding for schools in poor neighbourhoods? Whatever that money would otherwise have been spent on is harming the recipient of that now foregone benefit. If you raise taxes to do it, taxpayers are harmed. > Who is hurt by encouraging home ownership by black people? If home ownership is a good thing, whoever would have otherwise bought those marginal houses is harmed.

Denzel 3y ago
You missed the part where it’s not a zero-sum game. If you’re interested in the economic concepts behind why an economy is a positive-sum game in an open system, look up: production possibilities frontier (PPF) and comparative advantage. An economy would become zero-sum if we ran up against the limits of the universe. Until then, rest assured that opportunity can grow for both sides in a transaction.
- chii 3y ago
  The whole economy is indeed nonzero sum, but the topic is not the entire economy, but allocation of limited dollars between different groups. It is zero sum here in this limited context.
  - mcv 3y ago
    Investing in education has a very high ROI. Investing in better education in poor neighbourhoods will actually save you money in the long run. The fact that that is not happening is what's really hurting people.
namaria 3y ago
>Whatever that money would otherwise have been spent on is harming the recipient of that now foregone benefit. This would only make sense if the amount of welfare for rich people weren't outrageously high in the form of regressive income taxation, non meaningful wealth taxation, corporate tax breaks and subsidies, loan forgiveness programs for business owners etc etc all that on top of a nearly trillion dollar budget for military kit that sees what 40% usage?
- hokumguru 3y ago
  We actually spend more per year on paying off our national debt, which has been used to fund many social programs, than our military. Great and all but we really can’t afford any of this.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Paying interest on our national debt is more accurate than paying off. There’s no practical sense in which we’re paying it off nor even paying it down.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    The national debt hasn't really risen because of social programs. It has primarily risen because of military spending.
    - junofan 3y ago
      That’s strange because the 2022 deficit alone exceeds defense spending by a factor of ~2. DoD spending was up ~10% since 2012, which social security spending was up ~50%.
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        Social Security spending is from a dedicated levy, which generates more income than it costs. In 2012, the US was fighting two wars, so the fact that DoD spending didn't go down by 2022 is indicative of the problem. It's also misleading to use the few years when there was substantial pandemic related spending as indicative of the US's normal spending habits.
fugalfervor 3y ago
> If you raise taxes to do it, taxpayers are harmed. This is not true. If I, a taxpayer, want my taxes raised for the sake of extending equality to a historically and currently oppressed group, then I am not harmed. If you, a taxpayer, disagree with the notion of restorative justice, I posit that your overall happiness would be helped more by empathy and less by "lower taxes".
- seneca 3y ago
  > This is not true. If I, a taxpayer, want my taxes raised for the sake of extending equality to a historically and currently oppressed group, then I am not harmed. If you want your money used to pay for reparations you can donate to a charity with aims aligned with that desire. No one is arguing about what you do with your money. > If you, a taxpayer, disagree with the notion of restorative justice, I posit that your overall happiness would be helped more by empathy and less by "lower taxes". A functioning society requires accepting other people have different priorities and values from yours.
  - fugalfervor 3y ago
    > If you want your money used to pay for reparations you can donate to a charity with aims aligned with that desire. No one is arguing about what you do with your money. I can also advocate for the state to do it on my behalf. I prefer that solution, because a larger amount of resources can be allocated. > A functioning society requires accepting other people have different priorities and values from yours. I accept this, but the values expressed disturb me.
    - tristor 3y ago
      > I can also advocate for the state to do it on my behalf. I prefer that solution, because a larger amount of resources can be allocated. The only reason a larger amount of resources can be allocated is because you are advocating for using state violence to force people who don’t agree with you to also pay for your ideas. That’s what taxes are, fundamentally.
  - 3y ago
shadowgovt 3y ago
This is a very similar argument to "piracy is a moral ill because it deprives corporations and artists of money that would otherwise be spent on them." And it falls apart for similar reasons. When more people are capable of buying houses, more houses are built to meet the demand.

antisthenes 3y ago

> Not necessarily. Life is not a zero sum game. Life is a zero-sum game in way more ways than it is not, especially on the scale of a typical human life-span or important decisions that people make. This is a bad trope that just won't die. In fact you can see a lot of negative outcomes in spheres like housing and medicine precisely because of zero-sum issues.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]