4 ms·

Walter, I believe the idea against wealth inequality is not purely that there are wealthier people but that their wealth should be redistributed such that the w

by shric 4mo ago

Walter, I believe the idea against wealth inequality is not purely that there are wealthier people but that their wealth should be redistributed such that the wealthier people are less wealthy (but still wealthier) and the poorer people are less poor (but still poorer).

WalterBright 4mo ago
There have been many attempts at taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and the result was always everybody was worse off except the people who ran the government.
- srean 4mo ago
  Norway seems to be doing swell.
  - crossbody 4mo ago
    Well, if Norway managed to pull it off, we can just ignore all the countless counter examples
    - srean 4mo ago
      Another way is to learn from what Norway is doing right and see what can be replicated. Norway is not a sole example though, just a prominent one.
      - crossbody 4mo ago
        Can we? Do we even know the counterfactual? Perhaps Norway would have been 2x richer (incl. their poorest people) if they implemented ultra aggressive libertarian policies. The best we can do is learn from natural expriments like Finland and Estonia being about as rich before ww2, then by 90s the gap got massive since one was forced adopt more redistributive policies. Same with North / South Korea. Here we have at least some hope of extracting causality
        srean 4mo ago
        Counterfactuals no, but one can make good-faith scientific attempts. We don't because we are locked by ideologies.
        crossbody 4mo ago
        Exactly, and thankfully those have been made based on natural experiments like the ones I shared. And the consensus among serious modern economists (not those making money on selling popular books) is that redistribution negatively affects economic growth with all else being equal
        srean 4mo ago
        I would agree with your statement regarding politics that rests solely on wealth distribution of the populist kind. Wealth needs to be created so that one has something to add to everyone's bag.
        crossbody 4mo ago
        And I agree that _some_ redistribution is necessary for a healthy society. But the cost of slowing growth must be weighted agaist it. And populist calls for "no billionaires" etc are going to be bad for all, including the poor, in the end
        srean 4mo ago
        Almost in violent agreement. Disagree about the billionaire bit. Accumulates too much power too narrowly. Then one can subvert the market and rule of law. It seems the line lies somewhere between a hundred million and billion dollars at the current value of a dollar. I am happy and eager to make exceptions on a case by case basis if that billion dollars have been made in exchange of tangible goods and services.
        crossbody 4mo ago
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    It's nice to live on top of an ocean of oil to cover the deficits.
    - srean 4mo ago
      Indeed. It has rarely (if at all) worked out for any other country though. One or the other super power will make sure that does not happen. US scuttling Iran's nationalisation of their oil being one example. Even without geopolitical meddling, landfall discoveries of wealth at national scale has been frightfully difficult to manage well or to realize the value of. Your currency strengthens, your other industries lose out the on the price war, your economy gets skewed and sensitive to the health of one sector. In general it has been a curse than a boon. Norway has so far pulled this of phenomenally well.
- saulapremium 4mo ago
  No, that is not always the result, very far from it. You seem to believe that society is just the natural state of things, and "government" is almost just in the way. It's an incredible blindness to the privilege you enjoy.
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    The proper role of government is to protect people from thieves and murderers and externalities and provide national defense. I am not an anarchist. > privilege you enjoy Privileges anyone enjoys living in the United States. That's why millions are always trying to come here.
    - disgruntledphd2 4mo ago
      > The proper role of government is to protect people from thieves and murderers and externalities and provide national defense. This is a 19th century regalian viewpoint (which is fine). Taken to its logical conclusion, education and healthcare services should not be provided by the government. I think that this is a wildly unpopular viewpoint, and is really unlikely to lead to good outcomes in our kind of society.
- andyferris 4mo ago
  That’s incorrect. In most western nations, the “people who run the government” get paid a salary similar to a good software engineer (or maybe a doctor), and progressive taxation lets the government fund social services including free healthcare and tertiary education. Rather than use Stalin as a straw man, maybe try take your nation in direction that helps people, rather than away?
- crummy 4mo ago
  Are you arguing against the concept of progress taxation entirely?
- fragmede 4mo ago
  The French had a few thoughts about this, back in the day.
- wvenable 4mo ago
  Although some people due want to literally take from the rich and give to the poor, the actual problem with wealth inequality is that game is rigged. Capitalism not natural order; it has rules and winners and losers. It's actually more like sports. With sport, the goal is to create entertainment by rewarding physical excellence, mental excellence, and successful risk taking. Similarly, the goal of capitalism to create a better society by rewarding physical excellence, mental excellence, and successful risk taking. What happens to a sport when players cheat or exploit the rules to win? It's no longer entertaining! When the best players can no longer win that's boring. And, in sport, when that happens the rules are changed or enforced better to bring it back in line. Capitalism is the same. We are reaching the point where we are no longer properly rewarding excellence that is benefiting society. So the rules need to be enforced and rules need to be changed to bring that back in line. Inequality of this magnitude shows that rewards have outstripped the benefits to society and needs to be corrected.
- fragmede 4mo ago
  The French had a few thoughts about this, back in the day. FDR's New Deal raised taxes on the wealthy, and gave to the poor. Seems to have done America well. Post-war Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan land redistribution did well. And of course, there's the Nordic countries. Norway happens too have oil, but that doesn't explain Sweden and Denmark.

by shric 4mo ago

WalterBright 4mo ago

There have been many attempts at taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and the result was always everybody was worse off except the people who ran the government.

srean 4mo ago
Norway seems to be doing swell.
- crossbody 4mo ago
  Well, if Norway managed to pull it off, we can just ignore all the countless counter examples
  - srean 4mo ago
    Another way is to learn from what Norway is doing right and see what can be replicated. Norway is not a sole example though, just a prominent one.
    - crossbody 4mo ago
      Can we? Do we even know the counterfactual? Perhaps Norway would have been 2x richer (incl. their poorest people) if they implemented ultra aggressive libertarian policies. The best we can do is learn from natural expriments like Finland and Estonia being about as rich before ww2, then by 90s the gap got massive since one was forced adopt more redistributive policies. Same with North / South Korea. Here we have at least some hope of extracting causality
      - srean 4mo ago
        Counterfactuals no, but one can make good-faith scientific attempts. We don't because we are locked by ideologies.
        crossbody 4mo ago
        Exactly, and thankfully those have been made based on natural experiments like the ones I shared. And the consensus among serious modern economists (not those making money on selling popular books) is that redistribution negatively affects economic growth with all else being equal
        srean 4mo ago
        I would agree with your statement regarding politics that rests solely on wealth distribution of the populist kind. Wealth needs to be created so that one has something to add to everyone's bag.
        crossbody 4mo ago
        And I agree that _some_ redistribution is necessary for a healthy society. But the cost of slowing growth must be weighted agaist it. And populist calls for "no billionaires" etc are going to be bad for all, including the poor, in the end
        srean 4mo ago
        Almost in violent agreement. Disagree about the billionaire bit. Accumulates too much power too narrowly. Then one can subvert the market and rule of law. It seems the line lies somewhere between a hundred million and billion dollars at the current value of a dollar. I am happy and eager to make exceptions on a case by case basis if that billion dollars have been made in exchange of tangible goods and services.
        crossbody 4mo ago
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  It's nice to live on top of an ocean of oil to cover the deficits.
  - srean 4mo ago
    Indeed. It has rarely (if at all) worked out for any other country though. One or the other super power will make sure that does not happen. US scuttling Iran's nationalisation of their oil being one example. Even without geopolitical meddling, landfall discoveries of wealth at national scale has been frightfully difficult to manage well or to realize the value of. Your currency strengthens, your other industries lose out the on the price war, your economy gets skewed and sensitive to the health of one sector. In general it has been a curse than a boon. Norway has so far pulled this of phenomenally well.
saulapremium 4mo ago
No, that is not always the result, very far from it. You seem to believe that society is just the natural state of things, and "government" is almost just in the way. It's an incredible blindness to the privilege you enjoy.
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  The proper role of government is to protect people from thieves and murderers and externalities and provide national defense. I am not an anarchist. > privilege you enjoy Privileges anyone enjoys living in the United States. That's why millions are always trying to come here.
  - disgruntledphd2 4mo ago
    > The proper role of government is to protect people from thieves and murderers and externalities and provide national defense. This is a 19th century regalian viewpoint (which is fine). Taken to its logical conclusion, education and healthcare services should not be provided by the government. I think that this is a wildly unpopular viewpoint, and is really unlikely to lead to good outcomes in our kind of society.
andyferris 4mo ago
That’s incorrect. In most western nations, the “people who run the government” get paid a salary similar to a good software engineer (or maybe a doctor), and progressive taxation lets the government fund social services including free healthcare and tertiary education. Rather than use Stalin as a straw man, maybe try take your nation in direction that helps people, rather than away?
crummy 4mo ago
Are you arguing against the concept of progress taxation entirely?
fragmede 4mo ago
The French had a few thoughts about this, back in the day.
wvenable 4mo ago
Although some people due want to literally take from the rich and give to the poor, the actual problem with wealth inequality is that game is rigged. Capitalism not natural order; it has rules and winners and losers. It's actually more like sports. With sport, the goal is to create entertainment by rewarding physical excellence, mental excellence, and successful risk taking. Similarly, the goal of capitalism to create a better society by rewarding physical excellence, mental excellence, and successful risk taking. What happens to a sport when players cheat or exploit the rules to win? It's no longer entertaining! When the best players can no longer win that's boring. And, in sport, when that happens the rules are changed or enforced better to bring it back in line. Capitalism is the same. We are reaching the point where we are no longer properly rewarding excellence that is benefiting society. So the rules need to be enforced and rules need to be changed to bring that back in line. Inequality of this magnitude shows that rewards have outstripped the benefits to society and needs to be corrected.
fragmede 4mo ago
The French had a few thoughts about this, back in the day. FDR's New Deal raised taxes on the wealthy, and gave to the poor. Seems to have done America well. Post-war Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan land redistribution did well. And of course, there's the Nordic countries. Norway happens too have oil, but that doesn't explain Sweden and Denmark.