Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I am not sure why you would think that wealth wouldn't skew back into in-equal distribution.

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote very carefully.

I said: "The redistribution wouldn't vanish back to the original situation for a long, long time, and quite possibly never given the precedent set."

Let's break that down.

"The redistribution wouldn't vanish back to the original situation for a long, long time" - hey, looks like I do think the wealth will skew back to in-equal distribution! I simply think it will take a while to return to a handful of people holding half the world's money, and given that the rest of my third point is about what would happen when some people with no money find themselves surrounded by people with money, it seemed pretty fucking clear to me that I was talking about an in-equal distribution.

"and quite possibly never given the precedent set." - because once it's been made clear that at the point a handful of people hold half the world's money it all goes back again, nobody will be stupid enough to get that rich because they know they'll lose it all.




I can read, so no need to be snarky.

The question is whether we are discussing the same here.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: