Hacker News Reader

Comment by neilwilson | Hacker News Reader

The assumption there is because the rich have something the poor must have less. In a monetary economy where bitcoins are mined by running a computer that is of course nonsense.

Its perfectly possible to leave the rich with monetary wealth that they can show off to their friends about while the poor have material sufficiency - which is what they care about because they are more interested in their communities than coin collecting.

The problem is the assumption that there is a one to one relationship between money and stuff. There isn't.

View on HN

Wealth will help the rich win zero-sum games against the poor. The most important zero-sum games being political power and social status and desirable land.

The idea that you can change power by removing wealth by force has the same legitimacy as believing you can extract an egg from a baked cake.

Hmmm, don't events like the French Revolution counter that?

It was only a temporary measure, if you ask me. More like a vacuum was created, and a new set of wealthy people took the positions.

http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2017/04/18/inequality-in-fran...

So I'd say no, it's not really a counter. There is something else, something intrinsic in our society, that causes the existence of the wealthy. Or "inequality" as others like to call it.

Ah yes, and modern constitutions and democracies came to be from goodnes of old aristrocratic hearts!

Events like french revolution were key drivers of reforms that brought around the modern democracy. While they weren't as bloody outside of France, they certanly did influence movements in other countries across Europe and forced their absolutists to accept the necessity of a parliament to curb their powers.

Even IF new wealthy people took the positions, they end result for general population was an improvement of living conditions.

I agree with both statements. It's not because a rich person has more, that poor people have less.

If we were to start from scratch and redivide all the wealth in the western world between the people, it wouldn't take long for some individuals to rise to the top again and build up their net worth.

However, with wealth also comes power. There's just so much more you can achieve with good money in the bank. One simple example: a wealthy person with the good lawyer will almost always end up receiving a lighter sentence (if any) in comparison to the poor person with the shitty lawyer (if he even has a lawyer). That is clearly unfair, yet the way it is.

> However, with wealth also comes power.

This is certainly true. What's not clear is whether that power can be redistributed equally or if addressing it just leaves a vacuum of power and the risks that entails. More concretely, there hasn't been a form of campaign finance regulations that has actually achieved its goals in the U.S. At least so far.

If the rich couldn't fund their unfair legal teams, would the justice system be more fair? Or would it just give more power to prosecutors who wouldn't have their actions challenged and appealed as often?

I don't understand your bitcoin example.

If I understand bitcoin, the work of mining increases as more bitcoins (wealth) are produced.

The rich can buy more mining hardware, start/hire mining services, etc. than the non-rich. Over time, those who can invest in higher performance mining get wealthier than those who can't.

Over time, this would seem to concentrate bitcoin wealth among fewer, wealthier people. Am I missing something?

> In a monetary economy where bitcoins are mined by running a computer that is of course nonsense.

well the rich can buy ridiculously performant computers...

That's quite a generalization about the attitudes of the rich and the poor!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com