22 ms·

Poverty on the other hand is a much, much harder problem than that. In fact, no one quite knows how to solve it in a general way (there are things that seem to

Poverty on the other hand is a much, much harder problem than that. In fact, no one quite knows how to solve it in a general way (there are things that seem to work in certain contexts but not in others, many special case half-solutions). Everyone keeps saying that, as if there were only two alternatives: 1) completely fix poverty in a general way or 2) keep the status quo (and allow it to get worse). There has to be some way to get from the current wealth inequality [1] to something more humane. [1]: http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2 http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely...

lotharbot 13y ago
Speaking of wealth inequality: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-equalland.html http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-equ...
aidenn0 13y ago
There is nothing intrinsically morally wrong with high levels of wealth inequality. If wealth distribution were to stay as unequal as they are now, but total per-capita wealth increased at a steady rate, that would be a wonderful outcome for everyone. The issue is that the high levels of wealth inequality are used to capture nearly all of the wealth that is created, thus increasing the wealth inequality even more. That is a clearly unsustainable system.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >There is nothing intrinsically morally wrong with high levels of wealth inequality. That would depend on your moral system, wouldn't it?
  - aidenn0 13y ago
    Only if meta-ethical moral relativism is correct.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      Only if 'relativism' is reduced to 'different relative to my own' due to solipsism. There remains the possibility that there's an absolute morality intrinsic to the universe that your own personal models fail to describe accurately. i.e. just because you cover up your eyes doesn't mean that I can't see you.
      - aidenn0 13y ago
        You said it depended on "your" (which I took to mean "ones own" rather than specifically referring to "me") ethical system. If there is an absolute morality, then the morality of any given action is not dependent upon the morality subscribed to by the actor. [edit] Furthermore any statement about an action being moral or immoral that doesn't explicitly reference a moral system is implicitly assuming a moral system. I find "It is my belief that X is moral" to be stylistically inferior to "X is moral" and clearly the former is a factual statement, while the later is a statement of opinion. HN is a discussion forum in which stating opinions is acceptable, so I use the terser, stronger statement of opinion preferably to the more verbose factual statement.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        I was commenting on your assertion that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with high levels of wealth equality. The degree to which that is true, assuming an intrinsic morality, is the degree to which "your" (which I intend to mean you, the person posting as aidenn0) moral system corresponds to that intrinsic morality. As there was no argument pertaining to the actual existence of an absolute morality, all we are discussing is your model. All that we can gleam from that model is that steady per-capita income increases imply a good outcome for everyone, and that a good outcome for everyone implies that economic disparities that exist along with that outcome are not morally wrong. Therefore, there's no need to assume that moral relativism is a valid outlook, only that there's no proffered evidence that your assertion represents an aspect of that hypothetical intrinsic morality. If there were one, evidence that a particular condition compels a particular conclusion in one's model would only imply a particular condition within a moral universe would depend on the correspondence of one's model to the reality of that universe. Also, blah, blah, blah, blah-de-blah
mseebach 13y ago
Homelessness isn't primarily (if at all) a (financial) poverty problem. Mental disorders and drug addiction are large factors, and neither are fixable with cash.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Of course they are. Mental disorders can be fixed by paying for the treatment of people with mental disorders, and drug addiction can be fixed by paying for the treatment (rather than the imprisonment) of people who are addicted to drugs. There's nothing making drug addicts homeless other than the fact that we drive up a thousandfold the prices of substances that cost pennies to produce.
stuaxo 13y ago
There are some really good points on inequality in this vid too http://www.frontlineclub.com/the-inequality-debate/ http://www.frontlineclub.com/the-inequality-debate/
duncan_bayne 13y ago
Have a read of what pg has to say about wealth inequality here: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html "So let's be clear what reducing economic inequality means. It is identical with taking money from the rich."
- glesica 13y ago
  I strongly disagree with his apparent assumption that you can't "push down on the top" without wrecking things up. Sweden and Finland are proof that this isn't true, both have competitive economies that outscore the US in many important metrics for success (among these is general happiness). You can let people become wealthy, and therefore give people incentive to invest and create, without creating the kind of insane inequality we currently have in the US. His rant gets ridiculous, though, when he starts talking about doing away with the link between money and power... "We don't need to prevent people from being rich if we can prevent wealth from translating into power." That might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen a smart person say. Money is power. pg probably has someone mow his lawn. I can't do that. Why? Because pg is rich and can pay someone to do it, I am not, therefore I can't. But that's not Power with a capital "P", you say. But it is. That's what power is, the ability to get others to do what you want them to do. If you have money, in a capitalist society, you have power, by definition. Whether you abuse that power, or use it for things that people consider to be bad (like buying off members of Congress) is a totally different story. What implications does this have? Well, one of them is that money is, to many, a worthless thing to have if you strip away the power that comes along with it. Severing the connection between money and power would demotivate people the same way taxes do because, ultimately, they are the same thing: you used to have X, now you have X-Z.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    In an ideal society, it would not be illegal to be rich. It would be illegal to buy off members of Congress, pay people to vote for you or your cronies, own media outlets and using them to get (and keep) yourself elected into office, or in any way use that wealth to subvert the democratic process. We don't have ideal societies, but that's obviously a direction worth going. That doesn't mean you totally eliminate any power or privilege that wealth brings. Trying to eradicate malaria using your billions of dollars is an exercise in power, albeit not one that subverts the democratic process.
philwelch 13y ago
Can you provide citations that aren't garbage linkbait that pops up with a passive-aggressive "I believe in equality blah blah blah" that you have to click through before seeing nothing but a six minute flash video with no other useful content? Because I'm not going to watch it. I can read, thanks. I'm literate. Please don't insult my intelligence.

lotharbot 13y ago

Speaking of wealth inequality: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-equalland.html http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-equ...

aidenn0 13y ago

There is nothing intrinsically morally wrong with high levels of wealth inequality. If wealth distribution were to stay as unequal as they are now, but total per-capita wealth increased at a steady rate, that would be a wonderful outcome for everyone. The issue is that the high levels of wealth inequality are used to capture nearly all of the wealth that is created, thus increasing the wealth inequality even more. That is a clearly unsustainable system.

pessimizer 13y ago
>There is nothing intrinsically morally wrong with high levels of wealth inequality. That would depend on your moral system, wouldn't it?
- aidenn0 13y ago
  Only if meta-ethical moral relativism is correct.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    Only if 'relativism' is reduced to 'different relative to my own' due to solipsism. There remains the possibility that there's an absolute morality intrinsic to the universe that your own personal models fail to describe accurately. i.e. just because you cover up your eyes doesn't mean that I can't see you.
    - aidenn0 13y ago
      You said it depended on "your" (which I took to mean "ones own" rather than specifically referring to "me") ethical system. If there is an absolute morality, then the morality of any given action is not dependent upon the morality subscribed to by the actor. [edit] Furthermore any statement about an action being moral or immoral that doesn't explicitly reference a moral system is implicitly assuming a moral system. I find "It is my belief that X is moral" to be stylistically inferior to "X is moral" and clearly the former is a factual statement, while the later is a statement of opinion. HN is a discussion forum in which stating opinions is acceptable, so I use the terser, stronger statement of opinion preferably to the more verbose factual statement.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        I was commenting on your assertion that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with high levels of wealth equality. The degree to which that is true, assuming an intrinsic morality, is the degree to which "your" (which I intend to mean you, the person posting as aidenn0) moral system corresponds to that intrinsic morality. As there was no argument pertaining to the actual existence of an absolute morality, all we are discussing is your model. All that we can gleam from that model is that steady per-capita income increases imply a good outcome for everyone, and that a good outcome for everyone implies that economic disparities that exist along with that outcome are not morally wrong. Therefore, there's no need to assume that moral relativism is a valid outlook, only that there's no proffered evidence that your assertion represents an aspect of that hypothetical intrinsic morality. If there were one, evidence that a particular condition compels a particular conclusion in one's model would only imply a particular condition within a moral universe would depend on the correspondence of one's model to the reality of that universe. Also, blah, blah, blah, blah-de-blah

mseebach 13y ago

Homelessness isn't primarily (if at all) a (financial) poverty problem. Mental disorders and drug addiction are large factors, and neither are fixable with cash.

pessimizer 13y ago
Of course they are. Mental disorders can be fixed by paying for the treatment of people with mental disorders, and drug addiction can be fixed by paying for the treatment (rather than the imprisonment) of people who are addicted to drugs. There's nothing making drug addicts homeless other than the fact that we drive up a thousandfold the prices of substances that cost pennies to produce.

stuaxo 13y ago

There are some really good points on inequality in this vid too http://www.frontlineclub.com/the-inequality-debate/ http://www.frontlineclub.com/the-inequality-debate/

duncan_bayne 13y ago

Have a read of what pg has to say about wealth inequality here: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html "So let's be clear what reducing economic inequality means. It is identical with taking money from the rich."

glesica 13y ago
I strongly disagree with his apparent assumption that you can't "push down on the top" without wrecking things up. Sweden and Finland are proof that this isn't true, both have competitive economies that outscore the US in many important metrics for success (among these is general happiness). You can let people become wealthy, and therefore give people incentive to invest and create, without creating the kind of insane inequality we currently have in the US. His rant gets ridiculous, though, when he starts talking about doing away with the link between money and power... "We don't need to prevent people from being rich if we can prevent wealth from translating into power." That might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen a smart person say. Money is power. pg probably has someone mow his lawn. I can't do that. Why? Because pg is rich and can pay someone to do it, I am not, therefore I can't. But that's not Power with a capital "P", you say. But it is. That's what power is, the ability to get others to do what you want them to do. If you have money, in a capitalist society, you have power, by definition. Whether you abuse that power, or use it for things that people consider to be bad (like buying off members of Congress) is a totally different story. What implications does this have? Well, one of them is that money is, to many, a worthless thing to have if you strip away the power that comes along with it. Severing the connection between money and power would demotivate people the same way taxes do because, ultimately, they are the same thing: you used to have X, now you have X-Z.
- philwelch 13y ago
  In an ideal society, it would not be illegal to be rich. It would be illegal to buy off members of Congress, pay people to vote for you or your cronies, own media outlets and using them to get (and keep) yourself elected into office, or in any way use that wealth to subvert the democratic process. We don't have ideal societies, but that's obviously a direction worth going. That doesn't mean you totally eliminate any power or privilege that wealth brings. Trying to eradicate malaria using your billions of dollars is an exercise in power, albeit not one that subverts the democratic process.

philwelch 13y ago

Can you provide citations that aren't garbage linkbait that pops up with a passive-aggressive "I believe in equality blah blah blah" that you have to click through before seeing nothing but a six minute flash video with no other useful content? Because I'm not going to watch it. I can read, thanks. I'm literate. Please don't insult my intelligence.