6 ms·

The USSR notwithstanding. Or whatever it is China does.

briandear 11y ago
Redistribution results in one thing: equal levels of misery. Re: Cuba, Venenzuela, pre-Deng Xiaoping China, the Warsaw Pact countries, Vietnam. Standards of living are higher in capitalist countries, that's a fact. Aside from the insane, nobody in 1987 said, "Citizenship in the USSR would be so much I nicer than here in the U.S." Also interesting: the lines around US consulates to get immigrant visas-- they often extend around the block. Every single day. The line outside the Cuban embassy? None. If a redistributive economy is best, why aren't Latin Americans sneaking into Cuba instead of into the United States? Why aren't the Hondurans making the trip to Venenzuela instead of risking the danger of crossing through Mexico to get to the United States? I would offer that the poorest people in the world all want to go to the U.S. Not because of redistributive policies, but because of opportunity. You can't become rich in Cuba. You can't even start a business of any consequence there. You can't get capital loans. what's the incentive to innovate and work hard if the government is just going to steal your efforts. The government should have a regressive tax;bathe current tax system actually penalizes success and rewards failure.
- badsock 11y ago
  I don't get how some people seem to think that there's only two possible political systems in the world. When I say redistributive, I mean things like progressive taxation, estate taxes, and basic income. In terms of median household income, the US places 6th in the world (and dropping), behind 5 countries whose taxation systems are significantly more progressive, so I dispute your claim of "equal levels of misery": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income I really do understand that incentives matter, and that progressive taxation is also progressively disincentivizing. However, the countries in the world that have a better quality of life for the majority of their people are to the left of America, not to the right. And I'm more swayed by data than abstract economic theories.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    since your argument is about the effect of taxes, "median household income ... before deduction of taxes" (which is what the wikipedia page shows) isn't really a useful metric.
    - badsock 11y ago
      You are 100% correct, thanks! Here's a more appropriate link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-home_pay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-... The US is 7th, behind a very similar group of steep-progressive-tax countries. I would say an even better metric is median quality of life indicators (which tell a similar story of the US trailing left-wing countries) but that's an understandably more controversial index.
      - lotharbot 11y ago
        A further nitpick: pretty much any index of this sort (particularly QoL) also has to be corrected for demographic trends -- the US absorbs around 20% of the world's total immigrant population [0], and the majority come from much poorer countries (#33 Mexico, not-even-ranked China, India, Philippines, Vietnam, El Salvador, etc. [1]) Those are countries with much worse economies, health care outcomes, education systems, etc. -- all of which have significant effects on both "median" and "average" numbers for measures of the US as a whole. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...
        badsock 11y ago
        13% of the population of the US is immigrants; for Sweden it's 14%, and Norway it's 13% (source: Wikipedia).
        lotharbot 11y ago
- notahacker 11y ago
  And redistributive Northern Europe is more miserable than non-redistributive sub-Saharan Africa? (Actually, on the subject of redistribution in notionally communist countries, it's pretty funny when you're sat round a beer stall in Saigon and its the citizens of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that are loudly condemning the amount of money that gets redistributed to the indolent poor in the US because the biggest handout most of their own unemployed ever get is a 10% cut on any state lottery tickets they can sell...)
- mahyarm 11y ago
  The USA is very redistributive, but is less efficient in doing so in many ways than other countries. For example the health care system in america is significantly less economically efficient then the health care system of Canada, which causes a lot of human misery in the USA. To 'redistribute' wealth, you don't have to directly take money in the form of taxes and directly give it to others. You can also redistribute wealth with 2nd order effects such as rent control, or limiting the supply of doctors through unrelated expensive requirements and so on. Much of the economic inefficiency in the US's health care system comes from these 2nd order policies. So am I leftist if I want the US to adopt single payer health care and to cut a lot of it's negative 2nd order policies? Or am I conservative/libertarian for wanting it?
badsock 11y ago
This is basically the mirror argument of the "if you like libertarianism so much, why don't you move to Somalia?" argument that didgeoridoo rightly calls out in this thread. You don't have to be a Marxist to point out that often where there's well-funded, universally accessible mental health and addiction treatment programs crime has dropped significantly, for instance.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  I'm not arguing against social programs. I'm noting the fact that the grandest experiment in redistribution to date resulted in massive amounts of human misery.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    And being clever science-minded individuals, we can learn from that particular experiment and avoid some of its more egregious mistakes.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      Absolutely! And as clever science-minded individuals, it's important that we DO learn from it before praising the all-powerful curative nature of wealth redistribution just because it feels good.
      - badsock 11y ago
        You're both arguing against a straw man (no one in this thread has even hinted that wealth redistribution is an "all-powerful curative"), and belittling people by implying that their reasoning is based on what "feels good" rather than logic and empiricism. It would make HN better if you tried to make more substantive arguments for your position.
        oldmanjay 11y ago
        What you responded to isn't even an argument, it's an agreement. If you feel belittled then that is on you. I have no particular obligation to ensure that you feel good about your position.

Redistribution results in one thing: equal levels of misery. Re: Cuba, Venenzuela, pre-Deng Xiaoping China, the Warsaw Pact countries, Vietnam. Standards of living are higher in capitalist countries, that's a fact. Aside from the insane, nobody in 1987 said, "Citizenship in the USSR would be so much I nicer than here in the U.S." Also interesting: the lines around US consulates to get immigrant visas-- they often extend around the block. Every single day. The line outside the Cuban embassy? None. If a redistributive economy is best, why aren't Latin Americans sneaking into Cuba instead of into the United States? Why aren't the Hondurans making the trip to Venenzuela instead of risking the danger of crossing through Mexico to get to the United States? I would offer that the poorest people in the world all want to go to the U.S. Not because of redistributive policies, but because of opportunity. You can't become rich in Cuba. You can't even start a business of any consequence there. You can't get capital loans. what's the incentive to innovate and work hard if the government is just going to steal your efforts. The government should have a regressive tax;bathe current tax system actually penalizes success and rewards failure.

badsock 11y ago
I don't get how some people seem to think that there's only two possible political systems in the world. When I say redistributive, I mean things like progressive taxation, estate taxes, and basic income. In terms of median household income, the US places 6th in the world (and dropping), behind 5 countries whose taxation systems are significantly more progressive, so I dispute your claim of "equal levels of misery": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income I really do understand that incentives matter, and that progressive taxation is also progressively disincentivizing. However, the countries in the world that have a better quality of life for the majority of their people are to the left of America, not to the right. And I'm more swayed by data than abstract economic theories.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  since your argument is about the effect of taxes, "median household income ... before deduction of taxes" (which is what the wikipedia page shows) isn't really a useful metric.
  - badsock 11y ago
    You are 100% correct, thanks! Here's a more appropriate link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-home_pay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_take-... The US is 7th, behind a very similar group of steep-progressive-tax countries. I would say an even better metric is median quality of life indicators (which tell a similar story of the US trailing left-wing countries) but that's an understandably more controversial index.
    - lotharbot 11y ago
      A further nitpick: pretty much any index of this sort (particularly QoL) also has to be corrected for demographic trends -- the US absorbs around 20% of the world's total immigrant population [0], and the majority come from much poorer countries (#33 Mexico, not-even-ranked China, India, Philippines, Vietnam, El Salvador, etc. [1]) Those are countries with much worse economies, health care outcomes, education systems, etc. -- all of which have significant effects on both "median" and "average" numbers for measures of the US as a whole. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...
      - badsock 11y ago
        13% of the population of the US is immigrants; for Sweden it's 14%, and Norway it's 13% (source: Wikipedia).
        lotharbot 11y ago
notahacker 11y ago
And redistributive Northern Europe is more miserable than non-redistributive sub-Saharan Africa? (Actually, on the subject of redistribution in notionally communist countries, it's pretty funny when you're sat round a beer stall in Saigon and its the citizens of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that are loudly condemning the amount of money that gets redistributed to the indolent poor in the US because the biggest handout most of their own unemployed ever get is a 10% cut on any state lottery tickets they can sell...)
mahyarm 11y ago
The USA is very redistributive, but is less efficient in doing so in many ways than other countries. For example the health care system in america is significantly less economically efficient then the health care system of Canada, which causes a lot of human misery in the USA. To 'redistribute' wealth, you don't have to directly take money in the form of taxes and directly give it to others. You can also redistribute wealth with 2nd order effects such as rent control, or limiting the supply of doctors through unrelated expensive requirements and so on. Much of the economic inefficiency in the US's health care system comes from these 2nd order policies. So am I leftist if I want the US to adopt single payer health care and to cut a lot of it's negative 2nd order policies? Or am I conservative/libertarian for wanting it?

badsock 11y ago

This is basically the mirror argument of the "if you like libertarianism so much, why don't you move to Somalia?" argument that didgeoridoo rightly calls out in this thread. You don't have to be a Marxist to point out that often where there's well-funded, universally accessible mental health and addiction treatment programs crime has dropped significantly, for instance.

oldmanjay 11y ago
I'm not arguing against social programs. I'm noting the fact that the grandest experiment in redistribution to date resulted in massive amounts of human misery.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  And being clever science-minded individuals, we can learn from that particular experiment and avoid some of its more egregious mistakes.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    Absolutely! And as clever science-minded individuals, it's important that we DO learn from it before praising the all-powerful curative nature of wealth redistribution just because it feels good.
    - badsock 11y ago
      You're both arguing against a straw man (no one in this thread has even hinted that wealth redistribution is an "all-powerful curative"), and belittling people by implying that their reasoning is based on what "feels good" rather than logic and empiricism. It would make HN better if you tried to make more substantive arguments for your position.
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
        What you responded to isn't even an argument, it's an agreement. If you feel belittled then that is on you. I have no particular obligation to ensure that you feel good about your position.