Comment by astine | Hacker News Reader

Comment by astine | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I disagree when he says that the chief evil is inequality. Poverty, yes, is a bad thing, but to say that inequality is the chief evil is to imply that it is wrong to be wealthy. I don't think that's what he means, (he would be an obvious hypocrite if it was,) but it's what he's saying and it has implications about social justice that I think are very dangerous.

The problem with the third world is not so much that wealth is unequally distributed, but that it (the third world) is not currently in a position to produce wealth the way it could. This is a problem that needs to be rectified, (and sooner or later will be,) but it is not so much a matter of social justice as of genuine philanthropy.

That said, he's right, there is a lot more that we could do to help out the rest of the world that we don't do and we should take this into account. The problem IS that the problem is so complicated; simply giving or redistributing wealth won't cut it and might even hurt matters at times. I think that we'll figure it out sooner or later.

Inequality is a major component of why the third world isn't producing wealth the way it could.

Every person who is born into extreme poverty looses the opportunity for health, stability, and education that is necessary to build his or her abilities to the point where he or she can contribute to building wealth.

Think of it as analogous to human resources in a private company. It would be incredibly foolish to exclude a large part of your potential hiring pool.

What if the next Bill Gates is born in Nigeria? The potential production that the world would loose is staggering.

What you are describing is poverty begetting poverty, not inequality begetting poverty.

If everyone in the world had the same income as the average Nigerian, the world would be perfectly equal, but the Nigerians wouldn't be any better off. The problem isn't that the third world doesn't have as much as the first world, but that they simply don't have enough.

You're absolutely correct, we need to help people who are less fortunate than ourselves, but inequality isn't the source of the problem. Our being rich, doesn't make them poor (usually.)

Ah, yes, this is true. I was using inequality as synonymous with poverty, while there is an important distinction.

However, in a lot of cases, especially in the third world, abuse of labor and government allows a select few to build and maintain wealth. In those cases, the rich are only rich at the expense of the poor.

He didn't say the chief evil is inequality. He said it was inequity. Those are two different things: http://ninjawords.com/inequity,inequality

You're right, I misread it. Thanks.

When most people bitch about inequality, I think they are making the implicit assumption that wealth is a zero sum game. To them, the greed of the rich is why other people are poor. If the rich would only give in to greater socialism, poverty could be eradicated.

Of course, human history largely refutes this, but you get more accolades by believing in what is fashionable rather than what is right.

I think he's using inequity as a proxy for poverty and oppression. Maybe this isn't accurate within the US, though I'll argue it is. But it's certainly true on the global stage. One thought: unless we change our culture, inequality of power often leads to both poverty and oppression, often for political ends.

hey, not so hypocritical now - he's only #2!

Oh, I didn't say that I think he's a hypocrite; I think he is sincere. I just object to an industrialist using language that is subtlety socialist. There is a disconnect there that I don't like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com