Don't worry aston, the News.YC audience is primarily white male libertarian (both right and left) leaning. Although it's a philosophically consistent position, I think it fails to recognize that there are deep inequities in society that the market/competition just cannot fix (and sometime the market sometimes exacerbates).
I understand there are inequalities. The fact that most of us were born in the United States or certain parts of Europe puts us in the top 5% (higher? 1%?) of the world.
The inequalities between Americans is almost trivial compared to the inequalities found between rich and poor countries. And even though I still do it, that's why I feel so foolish complaining about anything
Free markets never fix societal inequities. In fact, they exacerbate them. People with wealth use that wealth to generate more wealth. Additionally, only a percentage of the lower class can climb to the upper class in each generation. It amazes me that anyone thinks there can ever be "equality".
Given a choice between equality in actual misery and "poor" people who have multiple TVs, decent housing, way too much food, and so on, why would anyone prefer equality?
I mention that tradeoff because it's the decision we get to make. Free markets give us poor people who live like kings compared to the poor bastards who are all equal.
I think that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are an acceptable price to pay for a well-off poor people.
Me - I'm far more concerned with what I've got than I am with what someone else has. Why are you so concerned with what other people have? More to the point, how much are you willing to give up for equality?
I am not sure why equality === misery. But I am not talking about everyone having the same amount of money- using the word equality did not adequately convey my feelings on this. I am talking about setting a standard for living (we already have explicit and implicit standards) and then actually following the standard.
Depending on the metric you are using we do well. If you are talking about making sure people have the bare essentials, we do pretty well. The "extras" like education are lacking though.
Comments
Don't worry aston, the News.YC audience is primarily white male libertarian (both right and left) leaning. Although it's a philosophically consistent position, I think it fails to recognize that there are deep inequities in society that the market/competition just cannot fix (and sometime the market sometimes exacerbates).
I understand there are inequalities. The fact that most of us were born in the United States or certain parts of Europe puts us in the top 5% (higher? 1%?) of the world.
The inequalities between Americans is almost trivial compared to the inequalities found between rich and poor countries. And even though I still do it, that's why I feel so foolish complaining about anything
Free markets never fix societal inequities. In fact, they exacerbate them. People with wealth use that wealth to generate more wealth. Additionally, only a percentage of the lower class can climb to the upper class in each generation. It amazes me that anyone thinks there can ever be "equality".
Given a choice between equality in actual misery and "poor" people who have multiple TVs, decent housing, way too much food, and so on, why would anyone prefer equality?
I mention that tradeoff because it's the decision we get to make. Free markets give us poor people who live like kings compared to the poor bastards who are all equal.
I think that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are an acceptable price to pay for a well-off poor people.
Me - I'm far more concerned with what I've got than I am with what someone else has. Why are you so concerned with what other people have? More to the point, how much are you willing to give up for equality?
I am not sure why equality === misery. But I am not talking about everyone having the same amount of money- using the word equality did not adequately convey my feelings on this. I am talking about setting a standard for living (we already have explicit and implicit standards) and then actually following the standard.
Depending on the metric you are using we do well. If you are talking about making sure people have the bare essentials, we do pretty well. The "extras" like education are lacking though.