10 ms·

> The real use of money is to buy freedom The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. Inequality

> The real use of money is to buy freedom The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. Inequality (wealth-based) means nothing else than domination. If you are richer, then you dominate the poorer people. And richer countries dominate poorer countries. This is the most basic and fundamental injustice [0] we seem to accept in our Western culture. Because we are those who dominate. [0] If you remember that we keep telling ourselves the nice little story how every life has the exact same value.

joyeuse6701 13y ago
Sounds like someone should read Paul Graham's essay on Wealth again.
dbecker 13y ago
The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide , for the two centuries.
- king_jester 13y ago
  Wealth is not zero-sum nor need it be, the only thing required for wealth inequality is that the current pool of wealth be heavily consumed and dominated by a small segment of people, leaving very little of the remaining pool for others.
  - jedmeyers 13y ago
    This small segment of people actually created this wealth. Why shouldn't they be the one consuming it? And you cannot call the sum of all wealth owned by people "a pool" because it is not concentrated in one place nor should be.
- ashray 13y ago
  Is the standard of living really growing for everyone? Or are there more people now (%wise) in poverty ? This is an honest question as several people have mentioned the standard of living argument before on HN. I've read however that the rich-poor divide is growing and thus am just wondering about this..
  - randallsquared 13y ago
    Both can be true at once. The richest are farther ahead than the richest were, in monetary terms, but the poor have made huge strides in absolute wealth as well: it's possible to live a 1950s upper middle class lifestyle on almost the same dollar amount in 2013. Our idea of what a middle-class lifestyle entails, though, is now far above that.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Well, there are also intangibles that nobody cares to measure, that matter a lot. A 2013 "middle class lifestyle" might be far ahead a 1950 "middle class lifestyle" in pocessions, access to products, etc, but there are important differences too. For example, in all likely the 1950 "middle class" family could get all they needed by only one person working. And that person work an 8 hour day, with benefits and security. He was also quite sure that'd he keep his job if he was half decent at it permanently. He rarely was in debt. Today's middle class starts of with a large debt (college loans), both in the couple have to work their asses of, and are not very far from falling off middle class, should anything bad happen (from a market crash to a medical emergency). As for the increased luxuries and such (compared to 1950), those don't mean nothing to them, as they are the assumed zero-level for all middle class in their time.
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        I believe your assertions about the 1950s need substantiation. I'd like to see some empirical data about things like poverty levels, life expectancy, job security, bankruptcy, and so on. Keep in mind that this is only a couple of decades (at most) from the Great Depression. Even if the 1950s were clearly better, it's a rather cherry-picked data point considering how much worse the 1930s clearly were. That being said, I'm not too excited about the intangibles of the 1950s. The Korean War was in the 1950s and Jim Crow was in full swing. Life expectancy was much lower. Just about any consumer good from today is clearly superior to the 1950s equivalent.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. And you assume that because it's not always zero-sum, that it never is, a position just as fallacious.
  - bermanoid 13y ago
    To swat down an argument one need only show that it's flawed, not that its converse is proven.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      True, but you can do so without fallacious reasoning that make you both wrong. Wealth is sometimes a zero-sum game and sometimes not a zero-sum game; not everyone who makes money is creating value for the world, but they usually are.
      - run4_too 13y ago
        Value for the world != things I happen to think are worth a lot. Your view is hampered by your ignorance of the definition of the word value. If people are making money (i.e. selling a product or service for a profit) they are by definition creating value by default. The fact that you may not find what they are doing valuable is as irrelevant to the equation as the fact that I don't like broccoli.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        > Your view is hampered by your ignorance of the definition of the word value. Given your reply, I'd say it's your ignorance on display here. > If people are making money (i.e. selling a product or service for a profit) they are by definition creating value by default. False. This naive notion assumes everyone is honest and consumers are informed, both of which aren't true. Plenty of people make money by duping customers into thinking they're providing value when they aren't and relying on customers laziness to take the loss when they figure out it was a scam. That someone voluntarily gave you money does not mean you provided them value. There is no value in Homeopathy, there is no value in fake magic aura balancing bracelets; these are simply people scamming stupid people for money by pretending to add value.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  When I am healthy, or plant a fruit tree (on previously unused land), or come up with a better or healthier way of doing something, nobody else looses anything. (That has been going on since the dawn of time if you will, and certainly not just since the last 200 years.) But on the other hand, a million dollars is in no small part worth a lot because most people don't have it; if everybody did, that wouldn't make everybody rich, it would just mean a loaf of bread now costs a million dollars. You can't just ignore that "because rising standards of living". Wealth is first and foremost a word, not an actual thing, and the associated concepts can be complex... but wealth purely in the sense of market shares, of bank accounts, even of being an expert in comparison to non-experts.. there is so much of what we tend to consider as wealth that is obviously a zero-sum game.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. And it very much is. >It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide, for the two centuries. Those are not personal wealth. Increased standards of living are a kind of background element, as they are more or less shared by the population. Statistically they even out, and only differences from them matter. A guy living in a trailer park today, with a tv, microwave, electricity, some medical access etc, would be considered living like a king, compared to a 1600's peasant working in some feudal farm. That doesn't mean he feels (or is viewed) as such in our society.
  - benched 13y ago
    This trope is so tired. Yes, I live better than a medieval peasant, and I have access to more computing power than ever. Yet, the standard of living across my entire family and most people I know is blatantly lower, in terms of human basics like housing and togetherness, than in my grandparents time, despite the fact that my grandparents were factory workers without even high school educations, and I am an experienced software engineer.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      I think we are in agreement! I only gave the example to say that what's basic is relative (compared to current standards), so saying that a trailer-park person has more access to more things than a peasant doesn't mean anything.
      - kbolino 13y ago
        If living better than a medieval peasant doesn't mean anything, then why do so few people want to live like medieval peasants?
        coldtea 13y ago
        For one, because most people can not even point Canada on the map, much less know anything about the living conditions in the medieval age. In fact, most things people associate with the middle ages are either BS or happened at other times. Witch-huns and the Inquisition for example, are phenomena of the Renaissance, not of the middle ages. Even the Plague happened on the tail end of the middle ages entering into the Renaissance. Heck, even fewer know that the ratio of holidays (what we'd call bank holidays today) to work was extremely higher in the middle ages compared to today. Most homeless/coupon-living/trailer individuals would be much better off in the middle ages compared to today.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide , for the two centuries. Much of that standard-of-living increase has been dug or pumped out of the ground in the form of coal, oil, or gas: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-between-energy-supply-population-and-the-economy/ http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-betwe...
- collyw 13y ago
  >It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide , for the two centuries. Inequality has been growing a lot the last three decades http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/living-standards-survey-institute-fiscal-studies http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/living-standa...
flyinglizard 13y ago
I think that's a simplistic view. Most rich people became rich because they provided a particular value to society. This value is exchanged for money, which allows the rich to draw back this value as they see fit. Lets imagine that Steve Jobs, instead of getting paid for his iPhones, sold them in exchange for a person's time. The average hourly wage in USA is approximately $24, meaning an iPhone would retail for about 25 hours. You can choose not to buy an iPhone, in which case you are free, or you choose to draw this value offered by Steve Jobs, but then you'd owe him 25 hours of work. The exchange is still completely voluntary, and therefore can't constitute domination.
- tveita 13y ago
  There were more people than Steve Jobs involved in manufacturing the iPhone.
  - flyinglizard 13y ago
    The same logic applies to each of them. It is assumed they chose to work for Apple, and that their salary reflects whatever value they bring the company.
    - c3o 13y ago
      That assumption is an oversimplification, concealing myriad dependencies, power/negotiating imbalances, information asymmetry, imperfect markets, lack of choice, restricted individual freedom, etc.
      - chatmasta 13y ago
        Yeah, down with feudalism! Employment is bad! /s
- Artistry121 13y ago
  And those involved in creating the iPhone (in countries with strong property laws) all entered into a trade agreement where they provided their time or skills in exchange for a certain amount of money. Bill Gates had to give 30 cents of every dollar he earned to the US government to avoid going to prison. That's domination - the threat of force if penance is not paid. Wal-mart never made anyone work for them. They simply have said we will pay $7.25 for someone's time with basic skills - if no one was willing to work at that wage they would up it. The value of unskilled labor is low.
yodsanklai 13y ago
I agree with you. Not only we accept this, but many are not even conscious about this injustice. I think it's not an exaggeration to say this is still slavery, in a less direct form than what it used to be.
Artistry121 13y ago
As I see it there are two options available: 1) People freely exchange goods and services. 2) Wealth is distributed without free exchange. It's a spectrum not an absolute. In free exchange (me trading with my boss or with Google or with a grocery store) I will never enter into a trade that has a lower expected value than the dollar value I'm giving up. In other words in every exchange I will either gain value or match value. On the second side of the spectrum I (me with the government, me with a slaver) will enter into a trade regardless of its outcome - meaning that I could lose value on any trade (for instance by paying into a poorly run social program, supporting a war that I disagree with or paying to be spied on). Also closer to the second range there becomes a coercive aspect where I am forced into something at the threat of violence (pay taxes or go to prison). Evidence shows the more freely exchanged goods and services there are (with some exceptions) the more productive the country. See: http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html If strong property laws are in place alongside an impartial justice system and limited government (one not influenced by wealth) human choice, good or bad, is respected and freedom reigns. When government is large and powerful or the justice system doesn't function properly (can be bought) coercion reigns. Those who would rather not provide value (or believe that their value is worth more than others will give them for it) may prefer the coercive side.
- kingraoul3 13y ago
  The Capitalist order was created with the closure of the commons, creating large masses of people with nothing to sell but their labor. The resulting 'Enclosure Riots' where put down with great force. As a consequence, 'Free exchange' then consists of people with massively unequal bargaining powers coming to an agreement. To see this arrangement as fair, one has to twist their sight up quite a bit. A defense of the free market without redistribution to counter the effects of this and other historical crimes is a defense of oligarchical privilege.
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure that if the commons had been divided up equally among the people who previously had the right to use them, we would be exactly where we are now. Capitalism results in inequality regardless of initial conditions, because people differ in their abilities, and in their luck. A much more powerful argument for redistribution than capitalism original sin, is that (1) we all live in a society, where we rely on the state to provide the security and infrastructure in which the free market is even possible, and (2) redistribution is the least intrusive, least restrictive method of improving societal wellbeing. It is (potentially) completely indifferent and blind to everything a person is and does, except for their total income. I know this argument seems weaker because it involves utilitarian aspects, but it is really a more powerful argument because it doesn't rely on an accident of history.
hodder 13y ago
I highly suggest you read Paul Graham's essay about the "Daddy Model of Wealth". http://paulgraham.com/gap.html http://paulgraham.com/gap.html Wealth is not a zero sum game.
mathattack 13y ago
I disagree. If have a $100,000, and somebody else has zero, neither of us have any value until I spend the money. If I spent the $10,000 to have someone do my laundry for the year (increasing my free time), then they have $10,000 with which to buy things that they might value more than the time doing my laundry. It may be groceries, it might be books, it might be a vacation. If I invest the remaining $90,000 (let's say by buying a bank CD) then the bank will lend the money out to people, who have an opportunity to buy houses, start businesses, or otherwise put it to use. Unless I stick the money under my mattress, putting money to use helps others. Nobody forces them to accept it.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Nobody forces them to accept it. In fairy tales maybe. In real life, need to feed the family, debt, hunger, mortages, need for shelter, medical treatment needs, etc etc are forcing them to accept it. >Unless I stick the money under my mattress, putting money to use helps others. The same thing happens with giving slaves food. It helps them. That doesn't mean it's the best kind of help they can get.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    So the alternative is not buying things or services from people who need the money?
    - coldtea 13y ago
      No, the alternative is to have some guilt when taking advantage of people that work for minimum wage, and not feel like Mother Teresa about doing it.
      - mathattack 13y ago
        You're putting Mother Teresa into other people's mouths. If there is large unemployment, and lots of people need work, is it morally better to spend $1,000 hiring one person or $500 each for 2 people, or $100 each for 10 people?
benched 13y ago
I cannot upvote you enough. The way I usually put it is that if you're putting those blinders on, focusing just on you and your family, and living large, you're like a person a dinner who gets up, fetches the ice cream and cake, and starts eating out of the carton in front of everyone who's still on the salad. Yeah, in a sense you aren't hurting anybody, there's just something globally rude about it.
strlen 13y ago
> The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. There are three wrong assumptions here: 1) that wealth is zero-sum 2) that wealth is the only possible way to obtain freedom 3) that for each individual the same quantum of wealth buys the exact same quantum of freedom. Prime-facie, neither of these three are true. There are all kinds of problems with associated with inequality (and the literature is far too rich for me to go into detail here), but this isn't one of them.
- dnautics 13y ago
  there's also the flawed assumption that freedom is a zero-sum game!
  - strlen 13y ago
    That one is very obviously and patently flawed: me to raise my arm in the air right now does not decrease your freedom. The only it could have been true about particular kind of freedom is if the assumptions the parent poster were true.
run4_too 13y ago
This essay is one of the easiest and simplest ways to show in clear terms that your opinion on money and wealth is simply incorrect: http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html
mortyseinfeld 13y ago
That's just a flat out lie.
dnautics 13y ago
Wealth-based inequality is not domination. In order to wield your wealth, you have to give it away, or at least offer to. political inequality, however, often results in domination. Moreover, wealth is not a zero-sum game. In any free transaction, both parties are made better off (otherwise the transaction would not have occurred). With politics however, there can only be a limited number of any given political position. Therefore, it is a zero-sum game. There are legions of wealthy people who conspire to trade in their wealth for political power, but do not confuse the nature of one form of power for the other.

joyeuse6701 13y ago

Sounds like someone should read Paul Graham's essay on Wealth again.

dbecker 13y ago

The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide , for the two centuries.

king_jester 13y ago
Wealth is not zero-sum nor need it be, the only thing required for wealth inequality is that the current pool of wealth be heavily consumed and dominated by a small segment of people, leaving very little of the remaining pool for others.
- jedmeyers 13y ago
  This small segment of people actually created this wealth. Why shouldn't they be the one consuming it? And you cannot call the sum of all wealth owned by people "a pool" because it is not concentrated in one place nor should be.
ashray 13y ago
Is the standard of living really growing for everyone? Or are there more people now (%wise) in poverty ? This is an honest question as several people have mentioned the standard of living argument before on HN. I've read however that the rich-poor divide is growing and thus am just wondering about this..
- randallsquared 13y ago
  Both can be true at once. The richest are farther ahead than the richest were, in monetary terms, but the poor have made huge strides in absolute wealth as well: it's possible to live a 1950s upper middle class lifestyle on almost the same dollar amount in 2013. Our idea of what a middle-class lifestyle entails, though, is now far above that.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Well, there are also intangibles that nobody cares to measure, that matter a lot. A 2013 "middle class lifestyle" might be far ahead a 1950 "middle class lifestyle" in pocessions, access to products, etc, but there are important differences too. For example, in all likely the 1950 "middle class" family could get all they needed by only one person working. And that person work an 8 hour day, with benefits and security. He was also quite sure that'd he keep his job if he was half decent at it permanently. He rarely was in debt. Today's middle class starts of with a large debt (college loans), both in the couple have to work their asses of, and are not very far from falling off middle class, should anything bad happen (from a market crash to a medical emergency). As for the increased luxuries and such (compared to 1950), those don't mean nothing to them, as they are the assumed zero-level for all middle class in their time.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      I believe your assertions about the 1950s need substantiation. I'd like to see some empirical data about things like poverty levels, life expectancy, job security, bankruptcy, and so on. Keep in mind that this is only a couple of decades (at most) from the Great Depression. Even if the 1950s were clearly better, it's a rather cherry-picked data point considering how much worse the 1930s clearly were. That being said, I'm not too excited about the intangibles of the 1950s. The Korean War was in the 1950s and Jim Crow was in full swing. Life expectancy was much lower. Just about any consumer good from today is clearly superior to the 1950s equivalent.
gnaritas 13y ago
> This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. And you assume that because it's not always zero-sum, that it never is, a position just as fallacious.
- bermanoid 13y ago
  To swat down an argument one need only show that it's flawed, not that its converse is proven.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    True, but you can do so without fallacious reasoning that make you both wrong. Wealth is sometimes a zero-sum game and sometimes not a zero-sum game; not everyone who makes money is creating value for the world, but they usually are.
    - run4_too 13y ago
      Value for the world != things I happen to think are worth a lot. Your view is hampered by your ignorance of the definition of the word value. If people are making money (i.e. selling a product or service for a profit) they are by definition creating value by default. The fact that you may not find what they are doing valuable is as irrelevant to the equation as the fact that I don't like broccoli.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        > Your view is hampered by your ignorance of the definition of the word value. Given your reply, I'd say it's your ignorance on display here. > If people are making money (i.e. selling a product or service for a profit) they are by definition creating value by default. False. This naive notion assumes everyone is honest and consumers are informed, both of which aren't true. Plenty of people make money by duping customers into thinking they're providing value when they aren't and relying on customers laziness to take the loss when they figure out it was a scam. That someone voluntarily gave you money does not mean you provided them value. There is no value in Homeopathy, there is no value in fake magic aura balancing bracelets; these are simply people scamming stupid people for money by pretending to add value.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
When I am healthy, or plant a fruit tree (on previously unused land), or come up with a better or healthier way of doing something, nobody else looses anything. (That has been going on since the dawn of time if you will, and certainly not just since the last 200 years.) But on the other hand, a million dollars is in no small part worth a lot because most people don't have it; if everybody did, that wouldn't make everybody rich, it would just mean a loaf of bread now costs a million dollars. You can't just ignore that "because rising standards of living". Wealth is first and foremost a word, not an actual thing, and the associated concepts can be complex... but wealth purely in the sense of market shares, of bank accounts, even of being an expert in comparison to non-experts.. there is so much of what we tend to consider as wealth that is obviously a zero-sum game.
coldtea 13y ago
>This assumes that wealth is a zero-sum game, so it can be traded around but not created. And it very much is. >It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide, for the two centuries. Those are not personal wealth. Increased standards of living are a kind of background element, as they are more or less shared by the population. Statistically they even out, and only differences from them matter. A guy living in a trailer park today, with a tv, microwave, electricity, some medical access etc, would be considered living like a king, compared to a 1600's peasant working in some feudal farm. That doesn't mean he feels (or is viewed) as such in our society.
- benched 13y ago
  This trope is so tired. Yes, I live better than a medieval peasant, and I have access to more computing power than ever. Yet, the standard of living across my entire family and most people I know is blatantly lower, in terms of human basics like housing and togetherness, than in my grandparents time, despite the fact that my grandparents were factory workers without even high school educations, and I am an experienced software engineer.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    I think we are in agreement! I only gave the example to say that what's basic is relative (compared to current standards), so saying that a trailer-park person has more access to more things than a peasant doesn't mean anything.
    - kbolino 13y ago
      If living better than a medieval peasant doesn't mean anything, then why do so few people want to live like medieval peasants?
      - coldtea 13y ago
        For one, because most people can not even point Canada on the map, much less know anything about the living conditions in the medieval age. In fact, most things people associate with the middle ages are either BS or happened at other times. Witch-huns and the Inquisition for example, are phenomena of the Renaissance, not of the middle ages. Even the Plague happened on the tail end of the middle ages entering into the Renaissance. Heck, even fewer know that the ratio of holidays (what we'd call bank holidays today) to work was extremely higher in the middle ages compared to today. Most homeless/coupon-living/trailer individuals would be much better off in the middle ages compared to today.
dredmorbius 13y ago
It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide , for the two centuries. Much of that standard-of-living increase has been dug or pumped out of the ground in the form of coal, oil, or gas: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-between-energy-supply-population-and-the-economy/ http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-betwe...
collyw 13y ago
>It's hard to reconcile that view with the fact that standards-of-living have been growing, more or less worldwide , for the two centuries. Inequality has been growing a lot the last three decades http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/living-standards-survey-institute-fiscal-studies http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/living-standa...

flyinglizard 13y ago

I think that's a simplistic view. Most rich people became rich because they provided a particular value to society. This value is exchanged for money, which allows the rich to draw back this value as they see fit. Lets imagine that Steve Jobs, instead of getting paid for his iPhones, sold them in exchange for a person's time. The average hourly wage in USA is approximately $24, meaning an iPhone would retail for about 25 hours. You can choose not to buy an iPhone, in which case you are free, or you choose to draw this value offered by Steve Jobs, but then you'd owe him 25 hours of work. The exchange is still completely voluntary, and therefore can't constitute domination.

tveita 13y ago
There were more people than Steve Jobs involved in manufacturing the iPhone.
- flyinglizard 13y ago
  The same logic applies to each of them. It is assumed they chose to work for Apple, and that their salary reflects whatever value they bring the company.
  - c3o 13y ago
    That assumption is an oversimplification, concealing myriad dependencies, power/negotiating imbalances, information asymmetry, imperfect markets, lack of choice, restricted individual freedom, etc.
    - chatmasta 13y ago
      Yeah, down with feudalism! Employment is bad! /s
Artistry121 13y ago
And those involved in creating the iPhone (in countries with strong property laws) all entered into a trade agreement where they provided their time or skills in exchange for a certain amount of money. Bill Gates had to give 30 cents of every dollar he earned to the US government to avoid going to prison. That's domination - the threat of force if penance is not paid. Wal-mart never made anyone work for them. They simply have said we will pay $7.25 for someone's time with basic skills - if no one was willing to work at that wage they would up it. The value of unskilled labor is low.

yodsanklai 13y ago

I agree with you. Not only we accept this, but many are not even conscious about this injustice. I think it's not an exaggeration to say this is still slavery, in a less direct form than what it used to be.

Artistry121 13y ago

As I see it there are two options available: 1) People freely exchange goods and services. 2) Wealth is distributed without free exchange. It's a spectrum not an absolute. In free exchange (me trading with my boss or with Google or with a grocery store) I will never enter into a trade that has a lower expected value than the dollar value I'm giving up. In other words in every exchange I will either gain value or match value. On the second side of the spectrum I (me with the government, me with a slaver) will enter into a trade regardless of its outcome - meaning that I could lose value on any trade (for instance by paying into a poorly run social program, supporting a war that I disagree with or paying to be spied on). Also closer to the second range there becomes a coercive aspect where I am forced into something at the threat of violence (pay taxes or go to prison). Evidence shows the more freely exchanged goods and services there are (with some exceptions) the more productive the country. See: http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html If strong property laws are in place alongside an impartial justice system and limited government (one not influenced by wealth) human choice, good or bad, is respected and freedom reigns. When government is large and powerful or the justice system doesn't function properly (can be bought) coercion reigns. Those who would rather not provide value (or believe that their value is worth more than others will give them for it) may prefer the coercive side.

kingraoul3 13y ago
The Capitalist order was created with the closure of the commons, creating large masses of people with nothing to sell but their labor. The resulting 'Enclosure Riots' where put down with great force. As a consequence, 'Free exchange' then consists of people with massively unequal bargaining powers coming to an agreement. To see this arrangement as fair, one has to twist their sight up quite a bit. A defense of the free market without redistribution to counter the effects of this and other historical crimes is a defense of oligarchical privilege.
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure that if the commons had been divided up equally among the people who previously had the right to use them, we would be exactly where we are now. Capitalism results in inequality regardless of initial conditions, because people differ in their abilities, and in their luck. A much more powerful argument for redistribution than capitalism original sin, is that (1) we all live in a society, where we rely on the state to provide the security and infrastructure in which the free market is even possible, and (2) redistribution is the least intrusive, least restrictive method of improving societal wellbeing. It is (potentially) completely indifferent and blind to everything a person is and does, except for their total income. I know this argument seems weaker because it involves utilitarian aspects, but it is really a more powerful argument because it doesn't rely on an accident of history.

hodder 13y ago

I highly suggest you read Paul Graham's essay about the "Daddy Model of Wealth". http://paulgraham.com/gap.html http://paulgraham.com/gap.html Wealth is not a zero sum game.

mathattack 13y ago

I disagree. If have a $100,000, and somebody else has zero, neither of us have any value until I spend the money. If I spent the $10,000 to have someone do my laundry for the year (increasing my free time), then they have $10,000 with which to buy things that they might value more than the time doing my laundry. It may be groceries, it might be books, it might be a vacation. If I invest the remaining $90,000 (let's say by buying a bank CD) then the bank will lend the money out to people, who have an opportunity to buy houses, start businesses, or otherwise put it to use. Unless I stick the money under my mattress, putting money to use helps others. Nobody forces them to accept it.

coldtea 13y ago
>Nobody forces them to accept it. In fairy tales maybe. In real life, need to feed the family, debt, hunger, mortages, need for shelter, medical treatment needs, etc etc are forcing them to accept it. >Unless I stick the money under my mattress, putting money to use helps others. The same thing happens with giving slaves food. It helps them. That doesn't mean it's the best kind of help they can get.
- mathattack 13y ago
  So the alternative is not buying things or services from people who need the money?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    No, the alternative is to have some guilt when taking advantage of people that work for minimum wage, and not feel like Mother Teresa about doing it.
    - mathattack 13y ago
      You're putting Mother Teresa into other people's mouths. If there is large unemployment, and lots of people need work, is it morally better to spend $1,000 hiring one person or $500 each for 2 people, or $100 each for 10 people?

benched 13y ago

I cannot upvote you enough. The way I usually put it is that if you're putting those blinders on, focusing just on you and your family, and living large, you're like a person a dinner who gets up, fetches the ice cream and cake, and starts eating out of the carton in front of everyone who's still on the salad. Yeah, in a sense you aren't hurting anybody, there's just something globally rude about it.

strlen 13y ago

> The real problem is: This additional freedom you can buy with money means less freedom for somebody else. There are three wrong assumptions here: 1) that wealth is zero-sum 2) that wealth is the only possible way to obtain freedom 3) that for each individual the same quantum of wealth buys the exact same quantum of freedom. Prime-facie, neither of these three are true. There are all kinds of problems with associated with inequality (and the literature is far too rich for me to go into detail here), but this isn't one of them.

dnautics 13y ago
there's also the flawed assumption that freedom is a zero-sum game!
- strlen 13y ago
  That one is very obviously and patently flawed: me to raise my arm in the air right now does not decrease your freedom. The only it could have been true about particular kind of freedom is if the assumptions the parent poster were true.

run4_too 13y ago

This essay is one of the easiest and simplest ways to show in clear terms that your opinion on money and wealth is simply incorrect: http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

mortyseinfeld 13y ago

That's just a flat out lie.

dnautics 13y ago

Wealth-based inequality is not domination. In order to wield your wealth, you have to give it away, or at least offer to. political inequality, however, often results in domination. Moreover, wealth is not a zero-sum game. In any free transaction, both parties are made better off (otherwise the transaction would not have occurred). With politics however, there can only be a limited number of any given political position. Therefore, it is a zero-sum game. There are legions of wealthy people who conspire to trade in their wealth for political power, but do not confuse the nature of one form of power for the other.