3 ms·

Ah yes, the great benefits of rampant inequality

by tossandthrow 1y ago

MiiMe19 1y ago
[flagged]
- noelwelsh 1y ago
  The value provided by the infrastructure greatly exceeds the value of selling it as scrap. If it seems worthwhile to an individual to, effectively, turn dollars into pennies a reasonable explanation is that none of those dollars come to them.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    You have a strange way of looking at this. From those doing the theft, it is pennies from nothing. It's not like they are spending money on anything. The tools being used are at best borrowed, but most likely stolen. So they only expense would be their time, and that's nothing especially if it's going to get them medicine so they aren't sick for however short time those pennies earned gets them.
    - noelwelsh 1y ago
      > it is pennies from nothing It is only pennies from nothing if the thief derives no benefit from the infrastructure. I don't, say, dig up a copper cable if that cable provides the Internet access I rely on to run my business or talk to my friends. The next obvious question to ask is why the thief doesn't benefit from the infrastructure, and the systemic answer is inequality. That's literally what inequality means: unequal access to resources and opportunities. Using your medicine example, it's unequal access to medicine that drives the crime.
      - dylan604 1y ago
        > I don't, say, dig up a copper cable if that cable provides the Internet access I rely on to run my business or talk to my friends. That’s the reason you’re going with? Not that you’re not a junkie and have decent paying job that makes this a money losing proposition for you because you are on the positive side of the inequality equation compared to a junkie?
- anonymars 1y ago
  What do you think it's about if not money?
  - rendang 1y ago
    It's definitely about money, but "inequality" makes it sound like the fact that other people out there are wealthy is the cause of antisocial people destroying property to pay for drugs
    - anonymars 1y ago
      I would posit that a society of reasonably well-off people would be less likely to steal guardrails for drug money than a society with a lot of poverty. I would guess certain voting patterns would be different too, for that matter. Perhaps part of that is: what underlies the inequality? Are folks getting wealthy by good old-fashioned hard work? Or something else?
    - tossandthrow 1y ago
      There are poor people only because there are wealthy people. I know it doesn't sit well at the American audience, but there is not such thing as inequality where it doesn't harm the people who has nothing. The easiest way to understand that is that people need to see yield on their capital - regardless of that means unaffordability for the poor.
      - anonymars 1y ago
        You might find this an interesting piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/realestate/switzerland-rental-coops-nonprofit-lausanne.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/realestate/switzerland-re... > The details will seem foreign to many in the West, where building home equity is baked into the system. But the central idea is simple: What if homeownership had no profit motive and no capital gains?

Ah yes, the great benefits of rampant inequality

MiiMe19 1y ago

[flagged]

noelwelsh 1y ago
The value provided by the infrastructure greatly exceeds the value of selling it as scrap. If it seems worthwhile to an individual to, effectively, turn dollars into pennies a reasonable explanation is that none of those dollars come to them.
- dylan604 1y ago
  You have a strange way of looking at this. From those doing the theft, it is pennies from nothing. It's not like they are spending money on anything. The tools being used are at best borrowed, but most likely stolen. So they only expense would be their time, and that's nothing especially if it's going to get them medicine so they aren't sick for however short time those pennies earned gets them.
  - noelwelsh 1y ago
    > it is pennies from nothing It is only pennies from nothing if the thief derives no benefit from the infrastructure. I don't, say, dig up a copper cable if that cable provides the Internet access I rely on to run my business or talk to my friends. The next obvious question to ask is why the thief doesn't benefit from the infrastructure, and the systemic answer is inequality. That's literally what inequality means: unequal access to resources and opportunities. Using your medicine example, it's unequal access to medicine that drives the crime.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      > I don't, say, dig up a copper cable if that cable provides the Internet access I rely on to run my business or talk to my friends. That’s the reason you’re going with? Not that you’re not a junkie and have decent paying job that makes this a money losing proposition for you because you are on the positive side of the inequality equation compared to a junkie?
anonymars 1y ago
What do you think it's about if not money?
- rendang 1y ago
  It's definitely about money, but "inequality" makes it sound like the fact that other people out there are wealthy is the cause of antisocial people destroying property to pay for drugs
  - anonymars 1y ago
    I would posit that a society of reasonably well-off people would be less likely to steal guardrails for drug money than a society with a lot of poverty. I would guess certain voting patterns would be different too, for that matter. Perhaps part of that is: what underlies the inequality? Are folks getting wealthy by good old-fashioned hard work? Or something else?
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    There are poor people only because there are wealthy people. I know it doesn't sit well at the American audience, but there is not such thing as inequality where it doesn't harm the people who has nothing. The easiest way to understand that is that people need to see yield on their capital - regardless of that means unaffordability for the poor.
    - anonymars 1y ago
      You might find this an interesting piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/realestate/switzerland-rental-coops-nonprofit-lausanne.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/realestate/switzerland-re... > The details will seem foreign to many in the West, where building home equity is baked into the system. But the central idea is simple: What if homeownership had no profit motive and no capital gains?