6 ms·

> What economic inequality would you deem small enough? I'd like the one small enough that I won't die from my (treatable) first major medical event due to bei

> What economic inequality would you deem small enough? I'd like the one small enough that I won't die from my (treatable) first major medical event due to being unable to fund 100% of treatment costs. I'd also like one small enough that me and the kids didn't spend most of the 2010s in hunger-level poverty. That'd be a start.

eru 1y ago
Nothing of what you said has anything to do with equality at all. It's about the absolute level of prosperity of yourself (and presumably everyone else). So if everyone got 10x richer overnight, but the top 1% got 1000x richer, that would increase inequality by any reasonable metric, but it would help with the benchmarks you mentioned.
- ascorbic 1y ago
  If absolute prosperity is what matters, how is the US the richest country in the world, while being pretty much the only one where medical bankruptcy is a thing?
  - eru 1y ago
    The US isn't the richest country in the world (per capita). What makes you think so? However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita. And in any case, I'm saying absolute prosperity of individual people matters. Not the average per capita absolute prosperity of a country. So people who go into medical bankruptcy in the US are obviously not individually rich. And I hope you and me agree, that if you could find a way to make them better off, that would be a good thing? Whereas if you found a way to make them worse off by 20%, but make Mr Zuckerberg worse off by 50%, that would not be advisable, even if it technically decreases inequality.
    - ascorbic 1y ago
      It's the richest country in absolute terms, and the richest per-capita if you exclude small countries. As a side note, it really shouldn't be possible to edit comments two hours after they've been posted and after they've had replies. Particularly without showing any indication of that.
    - voidhorse 1y ago
      No one is suggesting to "make Mr Zuckerberg worse off". The inequality problem is about access to material resources. Money is just an abstraction. No one is seriously suggesting to refuse zuckerberg access to good things on principle or to just diminish and not redistribute his wealth, that's preposterous. The point is that access to capital is access to resources. The people that hoard capital necessarily end up hoarding important resources and they use this imbalance to then extract further capital from others and further their position, thus in turn gives them power. The problem is all about bringing more balance to this situation so that we avoid a return to feudalism in which a handful of people have control over all the resources and power and everyone is is basically just beholden to their whims.
      - eru 1y ago
        How does 'hoarding' capital look like? What do you mean by that?
    - metabagel 1y ago
      > However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita. Better to use the median, because the average is heavily skewed by the ultra-rich.
    - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
      > However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita. Because it is very expensive to live in America.
  - bigfishrunning 1y ago
    In poorer countries, instead of medical bankruptcy, there just isn't medicine available. The poor in sub-saharan africa are not receiving first class government funded medical care.
    - simonask 1y ago
      This is a total red herring. We're not talking about sub-Saharan Africa. As Americans who want to fix your country, you should be looking at countries with similar standards of living, such as every single European country. You can even pick the rich ones, like the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, or Germany. The alternative to the current situation in the US is not abject poverty.
  - marcusverus 1y ago
    Medical bankruptcies are vastly overstated.[1] And while the US may be unique in our exposure to medical debt, we're doing much better than other developed countries in terms of overall household debt, which would seem be a more useful metric if you're concerned about the impact of debt on prosperity.[0] [0] https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/household-debt.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/household-debt.html [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30793926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30793926
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  No it wouldn't. Inflation would skyrocket and baseline prices would be at least 10x higher. And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists. The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy.
  - eru 1y ago
    I was not making a statement about UBI. I was purely talking about inequality. The price level is driven by what the central bank does with the money printer. UBI wouldn't raise prices, if the central bank does their job even halfway competently. (Even the mediocre real world performance of the Fed or ECB would suffice to _not_ have prices raise by 10x in eg a year of UBI.) > And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists. I was not meaning to imply that UBI would make people richer on average. My comment was purely about inequality being a bad measure. UBI plus the taxes that finance it are a redistribution scheme. It doesn't make people richer on average. At best you can hope that the tax is very efficient and has low or no deadweight losses (like land value taxes), so that on average UBI doesn't make your society worse off. > The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy. Huh? If what you said were true, the top 1% getting 1000x richer would merely not do anything, but it wouldn't be a problem per se. Btw, it's not a problem if someone just hoard some money: the central bank will notice that inflation is below target, and print more. (Later, when you spend from your hoard, the central bank will notice that, and correspondingly shrink the money supply.) Sticking money in a hoard is equivalent to giving an interest free loan to the central bank, because they can temporarily emit more money, while yours is out of circulation. However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc.
    - voidhorse 1y ago
      > However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc. exactly. Which is the problem. You seem to actually have all the ingredients to be able to understand why this is a problem, but some kind of sympathy for the rich (lol) seems to prevent you from actually using logic to see the problem.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
  > So if everyone got 10x richer overnight, but the top 1% got 1000x richer, that would increase inequality by any reasonable metric, but it would help with the benchmarks you mentioned. The metrics are a problem when the result was my kids and I regularly having no food for most of a decade. During this time we contributed to society, performed civic duties and cared for others. And we were just one hungry family of way too many to count. An ethical distribution model wouldn't be okay with that.

eru 1y ago

Nothing of what you said has anything to do with equality at all. It's about the absolute level of prosperity of yourself (and presumably everyone else). So if everyone got 10x richer overnight, but the top 1% got 1000x richer, that would increase inequality by any reasonable metric, but it would help with the benchmarks you mentioned.

ascorbic 1y ago
If absolute prosperity is what matters, how is the US the richest country in the world, while being pretty much the only one where medical bankruptcy is a thing?
- eru 1y ago
  The US isn't the richest country in the world (per capita). What makes you think so? However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita. And in any case, I'm saying absolute prosperity of individual people matters. Not the average per capita absolute prosperity of a country. So people who go into medical bankruptcy in the US are obviously not individually rich. And I hope you and me agree, that if you could find a way to make them better off, that would be a good thing? Whereas if you found a way to make them worse off by 20%, but make Mr Zuckerberg worse off by 50%, that would not be advisable, even if it technically decreases inequality.
  - ascorbic 1y ago
    It's the richest country in absolute terms, and the richest per-capita if you exclude small countries. As a side note, it really shouldn't be possible to edit comments two hours after they've been posted and after they've had replies. Particularly without showing any indication of that.
  - voidhorse 1y ago
    No one is suggesting to "make Mr Zuckerberg worse off". The inequality problem is about access to material resources. Money is just an abstraction. No one is seriously suggesting to refuse zuckerberg access to good things on principle or to just diminish and not redistribute his wealth, that's preposterous. The point is that access to capital is access to resources. The people that hoard capital necessarily end up hoarding important resources and they use this imbalance to then extract further capital from others and further their position, thus in turn gives them power. The problem is all about bringing more balance to this situation so that we avoid a return to feudalism in which a handful of people have control over all the resources and power and everyone is is basically just beholden to their whims.
    - eru 1y ago
      How does 'hoarding' capital look like? What do you mean by that?
  - metabagel 1y ago
    > However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita. Better to use the median, because the average is heavily skewed by the ultra-rich.
  - WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
    > However, Americans are on _average_ pretty rich per capita. Because it is very expensive to live in America.
- bigfishrunning 1y ago
  In poorer countries, instead of medical bankruptcy, there just isn't medicine available. The poor in sub-saharan africa are not receiving first class government funded medical care.
  - simonask 1y ago
    This is a total red herring. We're not talking about sub-Saharan Africa. As Americans who want to fix your country, you should be looking at countries with similar standards of living, such as every single European country. You can even pick the rich ones, like the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, or Germany. The alternative to the current situation in the US is not abject poverty.
- marcusverus 1y ago
  Medical bankruptcies are vastly overstated.[1] And while the US may be unique in our exposure to medical debt, we're doing much better than other developed countries in terms of overall household debt, which would seem be a more useful metric if you're concerned about the impact of debt on prosperity.[0] [0] https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/household-debt.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/household-debt.html [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30793926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30793926
surgical_fire 1y ago
No it wouldn't. Inflation would skyrocket and baseline prices would be at least 10x higher. And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists. The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy.
- eru 1y ago
  I was not making a statement about UBI. I was purely talking about inequality. The price level is driven by what the central bank does with the money printer. UBI wouldn't raise prices, if the central bank does their job even halfway competently. (Even the mediocre real world performance of the Fed or ECB would suffice to _not_ have prices raise by 10x in eg a year of UBI.) > And that's not how UBI works, no one is some multiplier richer because it exists. I was not meaning to imply that UBI would make people richer on average. My comment was purely about inequality being a bad measure. UBI plus the taxes that finance it are a redistribution scheme. It doesn't make people richer on average. At best you can hope that the tax is very efficient and has low or no deadweight losses (like land value taxes), so that on average UBI doesn't make your society worse off. > The top 1% getting 1000x richer is a problem, because trickle down economics is bullshit. Money that exists as part of a pile of gold in a dragon's den does not move the economy. Huh? If what you said were true, the top 1% getting 1000x richer would merely not do anything, but it wouldn't be a problem per se. Btw, it's not a problem if someone just hoard some money: the central bank will notice that inflation is below target, and print more. (Later, when you spend from your hoard, the central bank will notice that, and correspondingly shrink the money supply.) Sticking money in a hoard is equivalent to giving an interest free loan to the central bank, because they can temporarily emit more money, while yours is out of circulation. However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc.
  - voidhorse 1y ago
    > However, rich people don't tend to keep cash in a vault. Most of them own companies or land etc. exactly. Which is the problem. You seem to actually have all the ingredients to be able to understand why this is a problem, but some kind of sympathy for the rich (lol) seems to prevent you from actually using logic to see the problem.
WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> So if everyone got 10x richer overnight, but the top 1% got 1000x richer, that would increase inequality by any reasonable metric, but it would help with the benchmarks you mentioned. The metrics are a problem when the result was my kids and I regularly having no food for most of a decade. During this time we contributed to society, performed civic duties and cared for others. And we were just one hungry family of way too many to count. An ethical distribution model wouldn't be okay with that.