Hacker News Reader

Comment by argentinian | Hacker News Reader

> Inequality increases the pool of wealth with which "haves" may bid up the prices of commodities, real property, and services. And they do, effectively increasing demand. Transitively, inequality drives inflation, i.e., local conditions.

Impossible if there's competition between producers and it's at world scale.

> What if some people are just bad at doing things for themselves?

Tyrannies begin with those kind of ideas.

And inflation is a General increase in prices, not the increase of a specific good.

View on HN

>Impossible if there's competition between producers and it's at world scale.

That's a goalpost move if I've ever seen it. Maybe a No True Scotsman fallacy, too.

Geography confers varying conditions at world scale. Hence, "local" is the window. And producers create cartels unless regulated; wealth accrues to itself, capital returns more than labor. Piketty.

>Tyrannies begin with those kind of ideas.

You can't see me but I'm rolling my eyes.

Then regulate cartelization. That's a government function, if it doesn't work don't blame capitalism, blame governments.

Pretending to know better than other people what that other people should choose our want - and imposing it - is tyrannical.

You regulate cartelization in part by reducing their access to capital and redistributing it to non-cartel rivals, i.e., reducing wealth inequality.

>if it doesn't work don't blame capitalism, blame governments

Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard.

>Pretending to know better than other people what that other people should choose our want - and imposing it - is tyrannical.

No one has to pretend, they can just prove it. That's not tyranny, it's reason.

> Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard.

Do you believe that the same government people that is influenced by lobbying is going to vote to close the ways in which corporations give them money to control their decisions? How could that happen?

> No one has to pretend, they can just prove it. That's not tyranny, it's reason.

Tyrants believe that they know what's reasonable for the people to do with their lives, and as is often there case a lot of people don't agree with them, so then they use force to coerce people to do what they will.

There's no reasonable way to prove how people must live.

>Do you believe that the same government people that is influenced by lobbying is going to vote to close the ways in which corporations give them money to control their decisions? How could that happen?

I just told you.

>Tyrants believe that they know what's reasonable for the people to do with their lives, and as is often there case a lot of people don't agree with them, so then they use force to coerce people to do what they will.

All of that is true. And it has no bearing here, because we're not talking about tyranny. A society that redistributes wealth because the redistribution of wealth has been proven to promote a healthier society (along objective metrics) is not suffering from tyranny, no matter how much you, personally, feel like you've been wronged. That sense may very well be disordered. A million people shouldn't have to suffer because one person is aggrieved that his advantages were stripped. In this case, your aviation is a confession, and you're the one promoting tyranny.

I'm not against redistributing wealth. I'm sure that it is going to be obligatory with the jump off productivity that IA would allow, and I believe that some redistribution strategies are very good and that others aren't.

What I also believe is that reducing poverty is a much better goal than redistributing wealth. Redistributing wealth can be a valid strategy for reducing poverty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com