Remix.run Logo
▲ ChrisMarshallNY a day ago

I have family that has worked to fight corruption and poverty, for decades.

They believe that poverty is the root cause of most human problems. For example, some of the worst despots in history, got there, escaping grinding poverty, in their youth.

When you are skint, your priorities change, and things like labor laws, ecology, and species diversity, are non-starters.

It also doesn't help, to have rich people, dancing around, showing off their wealth. That tends to breed resentment (see "war").

▲pbh101 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Poverty is the default state of the world and is definitionally the absence of resources to solve problems. I’m not surprised that if you’re struggling to eat, you’re not going to have surplus energy to be concerned with longer-term problems, but this doesn’t seem especially insightful to me, and further, would lead me to invest in net-GDP-positive actions as opposed to poverty- or inequality-reducing ones so that there are more resources to bring to bear to longer-term and larger-scale problems.

▲ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent [-]

Well, discussions of poverty, seem to be unpopular, amongst wealthier folks.

Probably comes from the only real solutions to poverty, are transferring portions of wealth from richer people, to poorer.

That type of discussion won't really happen, in the Halls of Power, because...

...those folks are richer, so they look for any solution that doesn't involve them, having to divest anything.

▲pbh101 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Based on your comments, it sounds like you wouldn’t be satisfied with a solution to poverty that didn’t involve resource transfer or also ‘solving’ resource ‘hogging’.

‘Expanding the pie’ is what has the most evidence of poverty reduction by a wide margin, and capitalist-style allocation systems have the strongest evidence of pie-expansion.

I don’t think we have evidence of compulsory resource transfer ever working to the satisfaction of those pushing for more of it, nor do I think we have a clear model of how it can morally/ethically be sufficiently accomplished to meet the standards of those advocating for it for poverty reducing reasons. Primarily because the bar implicitly rises due to the hedonic treadmill.

No system is perfect, including the one we have now, but I would caution at taking for granted incremental/gradual improvements because today isn’t fully solved. I see a theme of impatience and desire for extreme system scrutability/legibility at the expense of empirically examining what has the best chance of accomplishing the stated goals and leaning into that.

(To be clear, no fan of musk here, I don’t think the solution is simply unfettered capitalism, and I’m under no illusion of ever being a billionaire, but above all that I’m more convinced that resource transfer will never ever accomplish its stated goals on its own.

I further don’t think this absolves one from duty to the less fortunate, just quibbling with the absolutist statement that transfers are the only real solution.)

▲ChrisMarshallNY 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, the "transfer" part wouldn't be necessary, if all the wealth hadn't been "hogged," already (where we are now).

Revolutions (what happens, when the hogging goes too far) tend to put knuckleheads in charge, and don't always help. Some folks are very good at fighting (and campaigning), but terrible at actually governing.

The long-term solution is to arrange the realtime distribution more equitably. That's the part that has been whittled away, and that terrifies people.

▲altruios a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Smart people will let green flow from themselves before any red.

▲Obscurity4340 a day ago | parent [-]

Are you saying the smart rich ones will let taxes and other contributions flow from them out of fear of later blood flowing from them?

▲jpadkins a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Probably comes from the only real solutions to poverty, are transferring portions of wealth from richer people, to poorer.

What a strange conclusion. Why is that the only real solution? How much wealth was transferred from rich to poor during 1870 to 1950 in the US (when most of the US population was freed from poverty)? What was the mechanism that transferred the wealth? Where and when did this wealth transfer reduce poverty, what are the historical examples of this solution working?

▲ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent | next [-]

This is a good example of where the conversation goes, when the subject comes up.

The issue is not with resource transfer, but of resource hogging.

History also shows a fairly regular cadence of what happens, when an elite minority starts accumulating all the resources for themselves, to the detriment of most.

▲jpadkins a day ago | parent | next [-]

> History also shows a fairly regular cadence of what happens, when an elite minority starts accumulating all the resources for themselves, to the detriment of most.

When and where? I gave a specific example of when and where poverty was actually reduced in a significant way. 1850 - 1950 US is probably one of the most objective examples of free markets in history. Of course there were super rich (robber barrons) that concentrated wealth, but there was also huge amounts of people being pulled out of poverty. That's how capitalism works. What resources did super rich hog in a free market society that hurt everyone else? (btw resource hogging is a different problem than poverty. You are goal shifting, unless you can prove that resource hogging causes poverty)

▲jodrellblank a day ago | parent [-]

> "1850 - 1950 US"

The poorest in a population are not the well-educated self-made wealthy, they are the uneducated, unemployed, enslaved, disempowered, disabled, homeless, widowed, sick, isolated, and those whose lives are affected by the suffering of deaths and the work of caring for those people. During the time period you picked it seems there was a non-trivial amount of government spending specifically educating the people, employing the unemployed, funding the disabled and widowed and elderly, avoiding sickness and death, feeding the hungry, improving pay for the employed, and more, e.g.

The 1865 abolishing of slavery in the USA meaning all employers had to pay workers.

The 1874 Michigan supreme court ruling that local governments had the legal right to fund high schools with tax money.

By 1896 40% of all federal government spending was through the Bureau of Pensions to 750,000 civil war veterans and 222,000 widows and other dependents.

The High School Movement[1] from 1910 to 1940 where 18% of American 15 year-olds were in high school at the start of that and 9% graduated at age 18, to 73% enrolled and the median youth had a high school diploma at the end.

The first statewide minimum wage in 1912 in Minnesota.

A colossal increase in federal government spending, starting with $15 Billion total in all the years from 1850 - 1900[2] increasing to $18 Billion in the year 1918, to $92 Billion in the year 1945, with growing billions and tens of billions in the intermediate years, including employing 22% - 24% of all American men as soldiers in WWII.

The 1933 New Deal creation of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, funding soup kitchens, relief payments, and work projects.

The 1933 and 1935 New Deal creation of Civilian Conservation Corps and Civil Works Administration, hiring millions of unemployed workers.

The 1935 creation of Social Security (reducing poverty among the elderly).

The first Federal minimum wage in 1938.

Infant mortality dropped from ~197 per 1000 live births in 1850 to 100 in 1915 and <30 in 1950 due to milk Pasteurization pushed by the US public health service under Roosevelt.

Jersey City got fed up of ~100 - 150 people dying of Typhoid fever every year around 1900 and sued the Jersey City Water Supply Company over bacterial contamination in the water. That lead to them developing chlorination. Hooray the free market at last! Oh they were initially paid millions to build the reservoir and pipeline which contaminated and killing people. Oh when they developed chlorination it was because it was cheap. And when they spent all of 99 days on it, they put it straight in the water supply of 200,000 people with no large scale testing or approval, no consent and no warning.[4]

Two World Wars which laid waste to the manufacturing competition and left the USA as a large manufacturer.

The US government funding 6 Penicillin production plants under the War Production Board in 1943.

Not to mention income tax introduced in 1913 and the top rate for the highest earners rising from 7% to 67% at the start of WWI, and rising to 62% after the Depression, and peaking at 94% in 1945 with a historically low cutoff threshold, for one specific way money was redistributed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school_movement

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#H...

[3] https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/government-spending-...

[4] https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/distillations-pod/jer...

▲jacquesm a day ago | parent | prev [-]

This is an uncomfortable truth for HN where a large number of participants believe themselves to be the next Elon Musk. They're not temporarily embarrassed millionaires, they are millionaires that are temporarily embarrassed billionaires. Speaking of re-allocation of wealth is the scariest thing you could say around here :) Keep doing it anyway.

▲ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent [-]

I will. It's funny to watch the reactions, and worth the downvotes (I can afford them). There's a rather ... predictable ... zeitgeist on this site. I basically enjoy being here, but watching the Musk stans at play can be a bit irritating. I often see jaw-droppingly heartless comments, made here.

▲jpadkins a day ago | parent [-]

You can't engage in an actual conversation about your beliefs or conclusions here, because it's pretty easy to disprove your ideas or solutions. You have shifted the thread away from my questions or examples. You have zero evidence that transferring wealth solves poverty.

And pretending its people that idolize musk is pure cope. At least get it right, and watch some Milton Friedan if you want to understand where many of us get our views from. You prioritize signaling that you are virtuous ("heartless comments") versus actually doing good. I hope that one day you use a rational, scientific rigor to actually examine do your family's preferred solutions do good or just feel good. I give to charities that actually deal with the root causes of poverty in the US, and I have first hand interactions with the people that it helps.

▲jodrellblank a day ago | parent | next [-]

If capitalism is what frees people from poverty, why (in your view) is the charity that you do needed at all?

Has there just been not enough capitalism in the USA in the last 76 years of increasing the GDP from $2.4T in 1950 to $32T today?

▲ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Have a great day!

▲davedx a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲pigpop a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The majority of wars are fought over control of territory, not resentment, and the aggressor is almost always either on equal footing or more powerful than the victim. The leaders of a nation won't start a war if they think they could lose it so they must have some materially founded belief that their nation can over power the other (a stronger economy, a more powerful military, a technological advantage). Resentment can be used as a rhetorical tool to motivate hatred of an enemy and to justify an already planned war but it's not the instigating factor.

▲dotancohen a day ago | parent [-]

  > The leaders of a nation won't start a war if they think they could lose it
This is objectively untrue.
▲pigpop 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I'll need some examples where the aggressor nation's leaders have started a war by saying something like "My fellow countrymen, we're woefully ill equipped to fight this war and in all likelihood we're going to lose but I've decided that we're doing it anyway."

▲dotancohen 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The Gazans on October 7th 2023.

▲pigpop 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you want to add Afghanistan and September 11, 2001 to the list?

▲dotancohen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Peace is not possible with cultures who view war as noble. Thus the very idea of winning a war - or preventing war - is almost impossible with such a culture.

Considering such, the list will get long very quickly.

▲carschno a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do believe that poverty can be (psychologically) traumatising, potentially resulting in abusive behaviour by those affected. However, I don't see that most human-made catastrophes are caused by such individuals.

Firstly, political decisions are never made by a single person. Even the most brutal dictator needs to be enabled by his environment.

Secondly, most powerful people have always been as far away from poverty as possible. For dictators, corrupt presidents and oligarchs, growing up in a wealthy environment seems the most unifying factor among the people in such positions. They are also the ones that cause wars, poverty, starvation.

▲poopingatwork a day ago | parent | next [-]

Life is about struggle and satisfaction. Some are content to plow fields, and some want to rule nations.

Effective leaders now how to move and sway both groups. If you sway only one group, you offend the other.

There will be a group that yearns to learn, and another that chooses a simpler life.

A group that wishes to push to the sky, and another that wishes to tend to the Earth.

Who is more right? Who should exist? Politics and War....

What happens when someone powerful chooses to give it back to the people? When a King decides to share?

To empower the man plowing the field and elevate his status. Do you think the man that was happy plowing the field will suddenly be happy running a business? If his society crumbles around him, would he still be happy?

Will the once happy plower see the good deed of his King? Or will he look for another leader, one who will return his life to something he considers normal?

▲rancar2 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think poverty and its threat to personal wellbeing (and the power dynamics surrounding it) are indeed a large driver. Looking back in history…

Genghis Khan [1: approximately 10 to 15 million deaths during his 1206 to 1227 reign, or roughly 2.5% to 4.2% of the 360 to 400 million global human population] and his family were abandoned by his clan following his father's death by poisoning. Joseph Stalin [2: approximately 6 to 9 million deaths during his 1924 to 1953 rule, or roughly 0.2% to 0.5% of the 2.0 to 2.5 billion global human population] grew up in an impoverished family with an abusive father. Hong Xiuquan [3: approximately 20 to 30 million deaths during his 1850 to 1864 rule, or roughly 1.6% to 2.4% of the 1.25 billion global human population] was raised in a poor peasant family that sacrificed heavily for his education; his repeated failures in the imperial civil service exams triggered a psychological breakdown prior to his path. Adolf Hitler [4: approximately 17 million direct regime murder victims, or 35 to 40 million including all European WWII war deaths during his 1933 to 1945 rule, or roughly 0.7% to 1.7% of the 2.3 billion global human population] grew up lower middle class; his father's death in 1903, his mother's in 1907, and two rejections from Vienna's Academy of Fine Arts left him impoverished by 1909 prior to his pursuits. Pol Pot [5: approximately 1.7 to 2.2 million deaths during his 1975 to 1979 rule, or roughly 0.04% to 0.05% of the 4.1 billion global human population, and 22% to 28% of Cambodia's population] came from a prosperous, royally connected family and lost his government scholarship in Paris after failing his exams. Mao Zedong [6: approximately 30 to 45 million deaths from the Great Leap Forward famine alone during his 1949 to 1976 rule, or roughly 1.0% to 1.5% of the 3.0 billion global human population] grew up in a prosperous farming and grain-dealing household under a strict father who had built the family's wealth from poverty, but who pulled him out of school at about 13 to work the farm and later cut off his allowance.

Evidence & Sources via latest Gemini model then grounded with Fable

1. Genghis Khan [Active Rule: 1206 to 1227]: Isolating Genghis Khan's personal campaigns [Northern China against the Jin, Western Xia, and Central Asia or Khwarazmia] from later 13th century conquests under Ögedei, Hulagu, and Kublai Khan suggests a rough estimate of 10 to 15 million deaths [an approximation drawing on census comparisons by Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones in Atlas of World Population History, 1978, and historian John Man's Genghis Khan: Life, Death, and Resurrection, 2004] out of a global population of approximately 360 to 400 million. 2. Joseph Stalin [Active Rule: 1924 to 1953]: Post-Soviet archival studies by historian Timothy Snyder (Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, 2010) and demographic historian Stephen Wheatcroft support 6 to 9 million direct and policy-induced deaths [executions, Gulag mortality, forced deportations, and the 1932 to 1933 Soviet famines] within his tenure, against a global population of approximately 2.0 to 2.5 billion [per U.S. Census Bureau historical estimates]. Older, pre-archival estimates run higher. 3. Hong Xiuquan [Active Rule: 1850 to 1864]: Sinologists Jonathan Spence (God's Chinese Son, 1996) and Ho Ping-ti estimate 20 to 30 million war, disease, and famine deaths during the Taiping Rebellion up to Hong's death and the fall of Nanjing in 1864, out of a global population of approximately 1.25 billion. 4. Adolf Hitler [Active Rule: 1933 to 1945]: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum estimates total approximately 17 million civilians and prisoners of war murdered by the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945. Including European theater WWII military and civilian war deaths up to Germany's surrender in May 1945 brings the total to approximately 35 to 40 million out of the 2.3 billion global population in 1940. 5. Pol Pot [Active Rule: 1975 to 1979]: Yale University's Cambodian Genocide Program estimates about 1.7 million deaths from execution, starvation, and forced labor during the Khmer Rouge's 1975 to 1979 rule, and most scholarly estimates fall between 1.7 and 2.2 million. Demographer Patrick Heuveline's reconstructions allow a wider range of roughly 1.2 to 3.4 million excess deaths. This is out of a 4.1 billion global population in 1976 [roughly 22% to 28% of Cambodia's 7.8 million population]. 6. Mao Zedong [Active Rule: 1949 to 1976]: Demographic reconstructions of the Great Leap Forward famine [1958 to 1962] by demographer Judith Banister [30 million], journalist Yang Jisheng (Tombstone, 2012, 36 million), and historian Frank Dikötter (Mao's Great Famine, 2010, at least 45 million) place famine excess deaths at 30 to 45 million out of a 3.0 billion global population in 1960. Deaths from the early 1950s campaigns and the Cultural Revolution [1966 to 1976] would add several million more. The account of his father's treatment comes largely from Mao's own 1936 interviews with journalist Edgar Snow (Red Star Over China, 1937).

▲smolder a day ago | parent [-]

> Genghis Khan [1: approximately 10 to 15 million deaths

You aren't doing the error bars on that quantity justice. There is not sufficient information from that era to get an accurate death toll. It could be 3 million or 30 million.

▲rancar2 a day ago | parent [-]

This was gathered from other research. Totally agree that it’s a wide range of estimates with lots of unknowns as you very well pointed out given the lack of dependable evidence and records from that period. Today’s DNA legacy is an interesting one.

▲akoboldfrying 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It also doesn't help, to have rich people, dancing around, showing off their wealth. That tends to breed resentment (see "war").

I agree that this accurately describes observable human behaviour, but not that we should therefore accept that it's morally okay.

In general, if I have a problem that could be solved by you having less of something, that's a me problem, not a you problem. Wealth inequality is such a case. (Anxieties over status are another example.) I want the absolute purchasing power of the poorest people in society to increase over time. If some policy causes that to double, but the APP of the richest people in society to 10x, that's a good policy.

▲jacquesm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your family is on the right side of history in this.

▲ChrisMarshallNY a day ago | parent [-]

I was raised in a tradition of Service. Most of my family are highly-educated (I'm the exception), and could have written themselves much bigger slices of the pie, but generally have remained in academia and public administration.

For myself, I have been a member of an organization for over 46 years, where it's all about helping folks that no one else wants to help.

▲jpadkins a day ago | parent | prev [-]

does your family promote free market capitalism? Can you cite a economic system that has raised more people out of poverty than free markets? I'm open minded here, but all my research has shown that free markets combined with new land to expand to is historically the best way to eliminate poverty.

▲ninalanyon a day ago | parent [-]

What's your definition of free market?

The Industrial Revolution forced huge numbers of people into awful conditions at the same time as increasing the wealth of those in power. Powerful landowners and factory owners had all the power in the supposedly free market and did their level best to keep both the power and the rewards of industry.

It was only government regulation that prevented further abuse and raised those poor people out of poverty.

▲jpadkins a day ago | parent [-]

My working definition is 1850 to 1950 US economy. It is probably our best example of free market (lightly regulated economy, only enough to keep the markets free). And yes the whole society gets wealthy, and it concentrates with some small percentage (pareto effect). So then we have to ask ourselves, do we want an overall wealthier society with some concentration of wealth (USA), or a more equal but poorer society (North Korea, Cuba, Soviet Union, et al)?

> It was only government regulation that prevented further abuse and raised those poor people out of poverty.

Which regulations and when? If you look at the estimated poverty graphs, I bet the poverty reduction started well before any of your example regulations. The regulations take awhile to take effect, and probably contributed to the leveling off of the poverty reduction decrease in the 1960s. You need evidence if you are going to try and rewrite history.