Hacker News Reader

The game isn't saying we should ask the rich to solve our problems. The game implies a system is fucked that allows one person to own a seemingly infinite sum, and leave others to suffer and die on the street. I think this is a fair assessment. A system that gives any one liberty to seek the greatest riches, should also protect those who's fortunes, being a part of the same system, are much poorer. It is probably a simple exercise to economically model how too much in one hand prevents enough in another's stomach.

Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate so much in the first place. There must be a sense of commonwealth, because the only thing that exists "in a vacuum of society", is nature itself, and that must in some respect belong to everybody. It would not even amount to "wealth redistribution" to tax the top 0.01% enough to afford decent housing and education; it'd be a soft cap.

> Better than questioning the morality of looking into rich people's bank accounts, is the question of whether it is ethical for people to accumulate so much in the first place.

The economy is not a zero-sum game. Bezos has "accumulated" company stock by building the freaking company. He didn't stockpile food he took from someone's mouth. He created value, and got value in trade for it. That is not unethical.

I'm willing to debate whether it is ethical to be uncharitable if you have great means. But can we please dispense with the notion that merely being wealthy is wrong?

It's fine that you disagree, but it rubs me the wrong way that you feel we should 'dispense with the notion'. Clearly the notion is one that a lot of people consider, at the very least, worth discussing. Implying that its ludicrous isn't much of an argument.

Being obscenly wealthy is so obviously wrong that many aspiring 'american dream' (TM) candidates can't even conceive of alternatives.

While Jeff has undoubtedly worked hard and he is probably even above avarage smart, he is has NOT worked 100'000x as hard and is NOT 20x times smarter than the average Joe.

Currently once you are rich it gets even easier to get even more rich. It should be the opposite. There should be a headwind making it harder the richer you get.

Nobody said being wealthy is wrong. It was stated the system is unethical that allows one to die on the street with nothing, and another to possess all, where enough is available for everybody.

We don't have to take food from somebody's mouth to prevent them from eating. In an economic system where you must have dollars to find food, you need only prevent them from getting enough money. And I'm not even saying Jeff Bezos does this. Nobody does it on purpose. It occurs naturally is our economic system, so we must determine whether it is ethical.

> The economy is not a zero-sum game...

it's also not a vacuum. The value of the dollars is nothing without a whole lot of other stuff going on. for instance: a 500B/yr standing military to protect the interests that keep those dollars valuable; a labor force that has been turned into a business commodity; the destruction of finite natural resources; the manipulation of the sovereignty of foreign peoples... it goes on.

"Does he have a greater moral directive to do so than us because he has accumulated a great fortune?"

Yup!

I'd be interested in the next few sentences to go deeper on why. Why should we delegate the prioritization of societal values to the wealthy? what about wealth-accumulation makes them better suited to choosing how we should solve problems for our society. And why are you and I not equally responsible for influencing the direction of things within our means?

We are. But look at the very last words you've used:

"within our means"

Don't you think with a bank account some orders of magnitude larger than mine, Bezos' means are larger than mine?

I wouldn't say that Bezos has an obligation to maximize well-being any greater than ours; but as the other comment pointed out, he is uniquely placed to have a much larger impact on large-scale problems. You're absolutely right when you imply that he is no better suited than anyone else to become an authority on those problems. And I think we are morally responsible for influencing problems within our means. Bezos can fund public libraries and provide clean drinking water, whereas I can comment on HN with a rudimentary understanding of meta-ethics :)

In thinking about this last paragraph, I think it may imply I am suggesting that /only/ government can solve these issues. it would more accurately reflect my position to say that a diverse set of players can participate here, Gov't being one important one.

Most billionaires have some kind of monopoly over a part of the economy; in maintaining this monopoly, they are having a negative impact over the efficiency of the economy so they need to offset this by giving more.

Is efficiency the best health metric for an economy, or is it just an easy one to use? Many of the most useful things become natural monopolies because they are so good.

Life in developed countries hasn't improved at all in the past 10 years. There are more apps and more gadgets but no actual improvement. If you really consider everything, the life of the average consumer has gotten worse.

Consumers are also producers and most consumers don't want to spend their lives being faceless cogs in the giant corporate machine but they don't have a choice anymore. What is the point of satisfying the most trivial consumer needs when their most fundamental needs to have a meaningful job are overlooked completely?

If there were fewer corporations, people would have better jobs, fewer people would live in big cities and they would be happier overall. The system would be more efficient at delivering value to people.