Hacker News Reader

Comment by joelrunyon | Hacker News Reader

Question, if at the base, poverty was eliminated, would it matter if there was more inequality?

Yes, because I don't want to live in an oligarchy. Do you? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.

If only there were some of law that prevented the ultra-rich from buying the political process...

The sad fact is, even when there is a law (like we had before in the US), extreme wealth usually finds a way to eliminate it. And then it's off to the races as a feedback loop is entered. In principle, capitalism is a fairly effective instrument for reducing inequality until the political process is corrupted, and then the advantages of capitalism no longer benefit non-wealthy people due to regulatory capture, socialized risk, etc.

It depends on the person, some people prefer relative wealth, other people prefer wealth in absolute terms.

That is, some people would prefer to be one of the wealthiest persons in a poor country over having double that money in absolute terms, but being relatively poorer to their peers in a rich country.

So it depends on the person.

So, your main complaint is money in politics.

This is exactly what PG was talking about. You're talking about corruption - not inequality.

No, my main complaint is that extreme wealth inevitably leads to political corruption and oligarchy. Among the wealthy, there are always some who aren't satisfied with wealth. They want political power, and to crush everyone else underfoot until they are in rags (some people think like this, seriously).

If people like that can't get political power honestly, then they'll find a way to buy it, and reap the benefits of their political power in government concessions paid by the taxpayers. Then they and their ilk will buy more political power. And then the systems enters a feedback loop, which is where we are now in the US.

Edit: I should add that I don't think that extreme wealth is the natural conclusion of capitalism. In a limited government system, combined with the natural dispersion of wealth that comes from passing money down generations, I think that competition serves to keep the top 0.01% within a reasonable multiplier of the average. Unfortunately, big government combined with big business is the worst of all possible worlds, and serves to increase and perpetuate inequality (a deeply-held belief I find difficult to properly convey to my Democrat friends).

Bingo

"If only there were some of law that prevented the ultra-rich from buying the political process..." Perhaps the rather counter-intuitive sounding "Voting with dollars"? http://www.yale.edu/yup/pdf/092628_front_1.pdf

There's another way (at least theoretically). We could reduce the power of the government, particularly its ability to influence the economy. That reduces the feedback loop from the other side. The rich can buy the political process, but they can't use it to get more money or to have great power.

Yes, because some people's utility functions are strongly inimical to other's likely happiness. It will be feudalism all over again, with vastly higher stakes.

If you have a bunch of the super-rich, and everyone else just at some happy medium, then you'll eventually output a mad god-king - in charge of some ridiculous multiple of the power that the majority of the planet can bring to bear - whose favourite sports are gassing countries where people's skin is the wrong colour and fucking the peasants to death on a Thursday.

Yes, and for the same reason it matters now. Envy is a part of human nature and is not going away.

Political power is about more than Envy. The US has some terrible policy due to who is in power vs. what's good for most Americans.

It's not about envy. It's about not getting one's fair share. It's hard to explain why corporate earnings soar, executive compensation rises but average salaries stagnate. It's basic fairness.

Saying "it's not about envy" doesn't actually demonstrate that it isn't. There certainly isn't anything besides envy hiding behind the notion of a "fair share" of someone else's property.

Just own it. There is nothing wrong with being envious despite attempts to shame people for it.

And bear in mind that no problems are ever solved if you refuse to acknowledge what they really are.

Envy has a very negative connotation.

You use the phrase "fair share of someone else's property". I am not talking about getting a share from someone else's property. I am talking about the elite deciding they should get a larger share of the gains the economy produces.

When people in a company complain that their CEO makes more and more money while their salaries are cut it's not envy but it's a basic question of fairness. Nobody wants to take away from the CEO. They just want to have a fair share of the earnings of the company.

Yes, envy is part of human nature but not everyone is envious by nature.

I think it still matters. We have already reached a state where the top x% live in a totally different world than the rest of the population. If their worlds diverge even more it will be pretty hard to find any kind of political consensus.

> If their worlds diverge even more it will be pretty hard to find any kind of political consensus.

In an actual democracy (without fraud / corruption), this should be your least concern since "the rest of the population" would be the ones deciding (voting)

We live in what is relatively speaking a capitalist market economy, which means when it comes to businesses people with more money get more votes.

So, your main issue is money in politics.

No my issue is that some people have way more money to put in politics than others.

ETA: money and politics are not separable.

Double edit: oh god damnit no I wasn't even talking about politics was I. Inequality allows the people on top to distort markets.

Addressing the "elimination of poverty" statement: Isn't poverty a relative construct? Unless full-communism is implemented, there will always be those that have less than others. For example, poor people living in the US have a much different life-style than the poor in a 3rd world country.

Yes, but they're unequal in their "less"-ness.

Having less in the US means you have a hard time paying your bills, etc.

Having less in a third world country means you're dying because you're literally crapping your insides out because there's no drinkable water.

Eliminating poverty (especially extreme) poverty seems worthwhile . Making sure everyone has the same amount of stuff doesn't seem quite as important

The only problem I have with your comment is that there are quite a few people who starve or nearly starve in the US. Dismissing all poverty in the US as just a hard time paying bills is incorrect.

Yes, there are a lot of programs to provide help in the US but many of them are far enough away that you'd need a car and if you don't have a car you are out of luck.

Is there a database of statistics on starvation in the US? Genuinely curious.

Feedingamerica.org would be a good place to start. The site is about the difference between poverty and food insecurity. If any place could put to a comprehensive database on outright starvation, that would be it.

I'd argue though that in North America, outright starvation isn't as much of a problem as just having difficulty accessing healthy food. The last stats that I read argue that about 15 million kids in the US experience hunger. They may not be starving, but they will have more trouble learning without adequate adequate nutrition.

I think that would be my complaint too - malnutrition rather than direct starvation.

That said, that has a LOT to do with our guidelines via the FDA and draws down from that moreso than inequality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com