4 ms·

> America is equality of opportunity not outcomes. It would be nice if America had equality of opportunity, but it's not. Not even close. No country is, and th

by mcv 1y ago

> America is equality of opportunity not outcomes. It would be nice if America had equality of opportunity, but it's not. Not even close. No country is, and the US less than many. Do you think a poor kid gets the same opportunities in life as a rich kid? A kid with drug addicted parents the same as a kid with loving parents? A kid growing up in a criminal neighborhood the same as one in a safe neighborhood? Real equality of opportunity is probably just as impossible as equality of outcome, but it's possible to get a lot closer than where the US is. > It's politically unsellable smacking of far left politics. Wealth redistribution is so unsellable that the US used it very effectively from the 1930s to the 1980s. It was a massive boon to US economic growth, gave the US a strong middle class, before Reagan decided to undo all of that and wanted more money in the hands of the rich. The only reason you see it as far left is because you've bought into right wing propaganda. > I could not care less that some guy has $10M or $10B. I'm happy in my life ... however I am pissed I am getting squeezed in the middle. Who do you think is squeezing you? The middle class is getting pushed back to the bottom. And the fact that some people have billions give them more power over society, over politics, and that helps them squeeze you.

scrubs 1y ago
I am well aware how (to keep this short) that one's birth zipcode has a major bearing on outcomes. Some people don't have equal opportunity to good parents or schooling. My family is an example. I'm the only one in my family with a uni degree. I paid for it. My father is the only one with a degree in his family. His father worked in copper mines. Still our family has made continual progress. My son is starting his masters in engineering. My better half had a degree. Redistribution as a macro government policy is still not advisable. Government cannot allocate resources well however well intended. Think Bush junior and housing crisis; he wanted house ownership up. Gov can deal with point problems: reduce cost of higher education (stop giving loans and grants to Harvard, yale), tell people what the expected roi on a degree is, tell people what other universities charge for the same degree (more is not always more), lower health care costs. Stop subsidizing corporate america. There I'd zelously advocate for gov involvement in addition to my other points
- mcv 1y ago
  > Redistribution as a macro government policy is still not advisable. Why not? It has worked very well in the past. > Government cannot allocate resources well however well intended. Your primary example is probably the US government, which hasn't wanted to do this well since Reagan. Instead, the focus has been to undermine its effect in order to justify cutting programs. But more benevolent governments have had much better success. > Stop subsidizing corporate america. I agree with that. The US has been redistributing wealth, but they've been redistributing it upward, rather than downward. But the US could do a lot to improve equality of opportunity by providing better public education, more affordable advanced education, and more affordable healthcare. Those three are low hanging fruit with massive returns on investment.
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  You realize our government built nuclear bombs, went to the moon, and in 4 years produced a nuclear powered submarine from scratch? Not to mention the interstate system, drinkable water in almost every home, and the world financial order as we know it today, the internet itself was a government project too. GPS? We have almost eradicated many extremely harmful illnesses as a result of government programs, including something that neutralizes but does not cure HIV. > Government cannot allocate resources well however well intended. That's because the half of the government that says this is ensuring it is true in order to justify deregulation and privatization to make their 10B benefactors happy. Most of the people who say what you say feel confident saying it, not realizing that it's not structurally true, but only true because they believe it.
  - scrubs 1y ago
    We appear to be living in an age were one's choices are 100% goverment all day all the time, or none. You're 100% Trump or not. You're pro-gun or not. You're pro-women rights or not. Well, I'm not having any of this simplistic baby pablum. Government != corporation despite the fact they both need money. I'm for a well-funded government that I can hold accountable for their roles and responsibilities, ditto on the private site. See for example the Intel thread floating around on HN; there we see a corp losing their competitive grip. Good lord: it will not kill America to have a decent linear combination of good and competent goverment and corporations. We need both.

by mcv 1y ago

scrubs 1y ago

I am well aware how (to keep this short) that one's birth zipcode has a major bearing on outcomes. Some people don't have equal opportunity to good parents or schooling. My family is an example. I'm the only one in my family with a uni degree. I paid for it. My father is the only one with a degree in his family. His father worked in copper mines. Still our family has made continual progress. My son is starting his masters in engineering. My better half had a degree. Redistribution as a macro government policy is still not advisable. Government cannot allocate resources well however well intended. Think Bush junior and housing crisis; he wanted house ownership up. Gov can deal with point problems: reduce cost of higher education (stop giving loans and grants to Harvard, yale), tell people what the expected roi on a degree is, tell people what other universities charge for the same degree (more is not always more), lower health care costs. Stop subsidizing corporate america. There I'd zelously advocate for gov involvement in addition to my other points

mcv 1y ago
> Redistribution as a macro government policy is still not advisable. Why not? It has worked very well in the past. > Government cannot allocate resources well however well intended. Your primary example is probably the US government, which hasn't wanted to do this well since Reagan. Instead, the focus has been to undermine its effect in order to justify cutting programs. But more benevolent governments have had much better success. > Stop subsidizing corporate america. I agree with that. The US has been redistributing wealth, but they've been redistributing it upward, rather than downward. But the US could do a lot to improve equality of opportunity by providing better public education, more affordable advanced education, and more affordable healthcare. Those three are low hanging fruit with massive returns on investment.
hayst4ck 1y ago
You realize our government built nuclear bombs, went to the moon, and in 4 years produced a nuclear powered submarine from scratch? Not to mention the interstate system, drinkable water in almost every home, and the world financial order as we know it today, the internet itself was a government project too. GPS? We have almost eradicated many extremely harmful illnesses as a result of government programs, including something that neutralizes but does not cure HIV. > Government cannot allocate resources well however well intended. That's because the half of the government that says this is ensuring it is true in order to justify deregulation and privatization to make their 10B benefactors happy. Most of the people who say what you say feel confident saying it, not realizing that it's not structurally true, but only true because they believe it.
- scrubs 1y ago
  We appear to be living in an age were one's choices are 100% goverment all day all the time, or none. You're 100% Trump or not. You're pro-gun or not. You're pro-women rights or not. Well, I'm not having any of this simplistic baby pablum. Government != corporation despite the fact they both need money. I'm for a well-funded government that I can hold accountable for their roles and responsibilities, ditto on the private site. See for example the Intel thread floating around on HN; there we see a corp losing their competitive grip. Good lord: it will not kill America to have a decent linear combination of good and competent goverment and corporations. We need both.