Hacker News Reader

Comment by didibus | Hacker News Reader

I think you can question the efficiency and ethics of a system where wealth accumulation and redistribution are largely controlled by individuals or private entities, instead of being managed in a more collective or systematic way that might address social issues more directly or equitably.

Should wealthy individuals that have often accumulated wealth at the detriment of others be the power that decides which causes are worthy of support, based on their personal preferences?

It seems it could be better to develop a system where resources might be distributed in a more equitable or communal manner from the outset, reducing the need for later redistribution through individualized philanthropy and ideologies like effective altruism.

View on HN

> wealth accumulation and redistribution are largely controlled by individuals or private entities

Private entities don't "control redistribution" - they spend money. "Redistribution" implies a parental "you all get the same pocket money" approach, instead of "I'll spend money on things I value, and receive it based on what others value".

There is no "collective way" - even with a government, it's relatively few people (voted in, not having proven their effectiveness by selling something lots of people value) making the decisions.

Charities, where people choose to help others, are a great option. There's no need to reduce the need for them. They also aren't "redistributing".

Having said all that, the government takes almost half your cash before you get it, and taxes you when you spend it as well, and taxes imports you buy as well, and taxes the fuel needed to move goods around, and the businesses you buy from in multiple ways, and if you're paid a salary your business also pays taxes on you as you're an employee. This is a pretty "we'll take your stuff" system already. The answer may not be to give them more stuff.

> The answer may not be to give them more stuff.

Is the answer to let people like Musk and Gates get so much stuff that they can pretty much do whatever they want? No one elected them. If you are incredibly successful does that mean you get to make more money than you would ever need and use it to do whatever you want? At what point are collective needs more important than the freedom of the individual to keep making more money?

These are all questions that are waved away by nature of 'they earned it'. But so what? They are particularly good at one specific thing (making money, or being lucky, or both) -- does that mean they deserve the power that one gets with having effectively infinite capital in a capitalist society?

I honestly don't know, but I heavily lean towards 'no'.

Rich people don't automatically have power. Sam Bankman-Freid is about to go to jail. If we lived in the sort of world your instincts seem to have been moulded to believe we do, that wouldn't happen. Anyone can go to jail, no matter how much money they have. Power is in the state, not in money.

Now, you can buy powerful people such as politicians, because the democratic process is not very good at being able to detect people who shouldn't have power. But that is not the same as power.

Private enterprise, however, is generally pretty good at giving people the right amount of responsibility and reward for value created.

The big, big problem occurs when you mix power and money. That's why tens of millions died in the last century. Mao and Stalin destroyed their own countries for the greater good, put and kept in power by people who thought that for government officials they could turn off their critical faculties; their instincts somehow trained to believe that government was like a good parent who will handle the family finances well and love its children. Sadly for them, government is populated by flawed people, just like everything else. To limit the blast radius of this, successful societies generally say: government has power; it shouldn't have control over the allocation of money. Venezuela has been experiencing the horror of the state taking over its main industry, its population starving.

In this case it's definitely true that perfect (or a utopian vision sold by a skilled orator) is the enemy of good.

Bankman Fried is in jail because he is a megalomaniac who thought he could talk his way out of it. He could be in Dubai right now with the other rich crypto scammers who are wanted in other countries but he decided to go back to the USA.

He also lost all his money, so he isn't a billionaire. I would love if you could list some actual billionaires who ever went to prison in the USA.

> Rich people don't automatically have power.

Yes, they do. In the US, anyway, money is power and the more of it you have, the more power you have. That rich people don't always get their way isn't evidence contrary to that. Not all powerful people are pulling in the same direction.

> Private enterprise, however, is generally pretty good at giving people the right amount of responsibility

I am very unconvinced of this, but it may depend on what you mean by "the right amount of responsibility".

My point isn't to advocate for increased taxes, but to address how we initially distribute wealth to mitigate inequality from the start. This might include revising corporate practices, improving wages, and enhancing public services, leading to a society where wealth does not concentrate so heavily in the first place.

Democratic systems do provide a communal approach to resource allocation, which tends to be more accountable than private philanthropy. It's worth pondering whether funneling donations to government budgets, which are subject to public scrutiny and democratic processes, might actually achieve greater societal benefit.

However, the crux of my argument is to create conditions where neither heavy taxation nor philanthropy are as necessary. Consider environments with competitive markets, strong worker protections, and cultural stances against excessive wealth accumulation. These tend to foster a robust middle class, minimizing the need for later redistribution.

This is one of those yes and kind of points. Talking about The Revolution doesn't put food on people's plates.

I think this is exactly what the GP means when they discuss donating to political causes. If you can donate your $100 to buy a week's worth of food for a family in need, or donate it to a political campaign that credibly promises to end hunger in your country, it's not immediately obvious which is more effective (but the latter tends to be discounted by EA types, especially early in the history of the movement).

Perhaps the most effective altruism of all is that which makes Effective Altruism (TM) redundant.

Something like, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

I like to term my database setups as "to each according to his needs"-"from each according to his ability" replication.

So, communism? Or something else along those same lines? This is not a new argument.

> more equitable or communal manner

Who, exactly, are we empowering to make that decision?

> So, communism

No, that would be another instance of a similar pattern of "pool all the money and put it in the hand of a select few that gets to decide if, where and how to redistribute it".

I'm talking of a system that wouldn't first accumulate maximum wealth, and then have a select few decide where to distribute it.

I'm not sure what system can best achieve this, but it does feel like it be better to have a system that's designed to make it so money is distributed more evenly from the outset, and where distribution decisions are done more communally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com