
Hawking: We need to rethink our attitude towards wealth - pratheekrebala
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/29/stephen-hawking-brexit-wealth-resources?CMP=fb_gu
======
hal9000xp
I actually don't understand why Brexit should necessary be bad for UK.
Switzerland is doing very well outside of EU despite it's literally surrounded
by EU members. Of course, there is a risk that UK won't do as good as
Switzerland does but it's only risk, it's not established fact yet.

Regarding article itself ... well, it's The Guardian so it's very predictable
what they will write about wealth.

Regarding author, it's the same, respected and famous scientist is
longstanding Labour Party supporter. With all due respect to mister Hawking, I
won't buy socialism in any possible form and any interpretation even from
world famous scientist.

I would prefer to enjoy to read his great science books.

~~~
roymurdock
> I won't buy socialism in any possible form and any interpretation even from
> world famous scientist

This is a pretty ridiculous statement.

Do you believe in taxation? Do you believe there are some things that a
collective organization of people can do better than an individual - be that
organization a family, village, private company, or a federal government? OK,
then you buy into and support the premise of socialism.

Socialism/capitalism isn't binary. Don't be arbitrarily afraid of either word
or concept, but do be afraid of either extreme, as extremes are always
untenable. Moving towards "socialism" by increasing taxation on the ultra-
wealthy is a move to restore balance and guide us away from one extreme which
has gained in popularity in the past 30 years.

I'm 23 and I live in the US. The fear surrounding terms like
socialism/communism to this day, even with my generation, amazes me. My peers
have learned to use these terms as an insult without knowing exactly _why_
they are insulting - they just feel a vague sense that socialism is "un-
American".

I get that we had to turn on the propaganda machine full blast during the cold
war as the threat of nuclear extinction is no laughing matter. But with
programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. making up such a huge
portion of our federal budget, maybe it's time to rethink our hatred and out-
of-hand fear of simple terms that we use to talk about ownership and wealth
redistribution.

~~~
greggyb
> Socialism/capitalism isn't binary.

This is correct.

> Moving towards "socialism" by increasing taxation on the ultra-wealthy

This is not a move toward socialism.

Socialism is defined by communal ownership of the means of production and
exchange. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the same. These terms
are specific in meaning, as they are jargon in the field of economics.

I'm not particularly interested in engaging in a political or economic debate
right now, so I'm not trying to pass judgment on what is good or bad, but if
you're going to make a post about people mischaracterizing a concept while
doing so yourself.

Ninja edit: That capitalism and socialism are often seen in combination with
other particular social and economic arrangements does not in any way make
these things a component of socialism or capitalism.

------
erdevs
The article asks "can possessions stand in the way of fulfillment?" Experience
tells me the answer there is certainly yes, they can and often do. I think
achieving a cultural shift away from the accumulation of possessions is
achievable-- as cities get more dense, as travel becomes more regular, safe
and affordable-- and in some sections of culture this is happening already.

The article also asks though if we can truly ever own things vs only custodian
them. Here I don't see any shift happening. The principal of property
ownership, where property extends to land and to ownership of business
corporations, is what largely drives the Pareto distribution of income we
experience. This, in turn, defines the disparity between the rich and the
poor. So, I'm not sure a truly fundamental shift can or will happen here.

I'm curious to understand the forthcoming results and learnings from
experiments in Universal Basic Income which are beginning to get under way.
And I think that if robots and AI actually automate away most current human
labor, we might be able to rebalance our economy in a manner beneficial to
more people. Alternatively, if life extension becomes more and more practical,
the fundaments of our economy may be ripe for change. So, over the course of
decades or centuries, I can see the equilibria of our economic system and the
distribution of incomes and therefore wealth accumulation changing
dramatically. But I don't think it happens through any mere cultural shift in
thinking nor via incremental policy changes. That may not be a bad thing, but
everyone should know that the fundamental rules of the system are unlikely to
change dramatically any time soon, without some major impetus to necessitate
it.

~~~
clavalle
>The article asks "can possessions stand in the way of fulfillment?"
Experience tells me the answer there is certainly yes, they can and often do.

While this can be true, and I know a few people who seem oddly compelled to
accumulate more at the detriment of the rest of their lives, I find that it is
far more common that the lack of wealth stands in the way of fulfillment.

On a different point, I see the market as an efficient way to find the best
custodians for things. Or, at least, that is the ideal. The real market is far
more complicated, of course.

Inequality is inevitable, and probably desirable. I only have a problem with
inequality when those that have more can exploit those that have less.
Contrary to common wisdom which is that people must be compelled through
desperation to work (an extension of outdated history), I think it is possible
for those that have less to have less command of wealth yet still not be
completely desperate. Desperation and exploitation are not core features of a
free market, Capitalistic system. In fact, I think they are a drag on
Capitalism and the free market.

~~~
nyolfen
>Desperation and exploitation are not core features of a free market,
Capitalistic system. In fact, I think they are a drag on Capitalism and the
free market.

without making a value judgment, i think this extremely disputable,
historically speaking

~~~
clavalle
You don't have to dig in history to dispute it, desperation and exploitation
are current features of our Capitalist system.

BUT

I think that is more historical accident rather than a necessary consequence
of the system. I think we have to work to pull Capitalism out of that swamp if
it is to remain viable for the foreseeable future.

But it is so ingrained that these are part and parcel with the free market
that suggesting ways to fix it is taken as an attack on Capitalism itself.

In my view, if we removed desperation from the system, one way or another, and
allowed people to bargain for a gain rather than to stem losses, it would be
jet fuel for the market, the economy and Capitalism as a whole.

~~~
wes-k
As long as businesses are profit driven there will be exploitation of both
people and the environment.

It takes a trememdous effort to navigate the consumables as to minimize harm
to yourself (bad food, addictive & compulsive apps) or the environment (so
much plastic!). My point is, removing desperation helps but you still have to
navigate the business landmines.

------
elgabogringo
He really lost me with the first two paragraphs... Oh, and the title. The
Brexit? Really? He's using the Brexit to launch into a soliloquy on the
meaning of life?

It's not clear to me that the Brexit had to do with wealth as much as it had
to do with sovereignty. It's also not clear that the Brexit will have a
negative long run impact on Britain's wealth.

I know this sounds _crazy_ to all the super smart international people out
there, but A) the EU's growth sucks and B) it's likely to get worse before it
gets better - oh, and C) when it gets worse the Euro could very well go away,
making the Brexit crowd look like geniuses.

Look, if you look for fulfillment in money or possessions you are going to be
disappointed. This has been a tenet of Western philosophy for millennia. Using
this philosophy as a platform to trash the Brexit is disingenuous and beneath
somebody as uber super smart as Hawking.

~~~
hx87
You seem to be confusing the Eurozone with the EU. The latter has its problems
but is a basically sound institution, whereas the former was and remains a
terrible idea without a fiscal union.

~~~
gonvaled
Sure, great experience traveling to Poland lately, being used to move in the
Eurozone.

And I give up on balancing my books with my detailed expenses (cash, credit
cards, ...) there. I just have a big “Poland expenses, 1250 €“ entry.

~~~
mamon
So you are suggesting that Poland should give up its financial stability (like
being pretty much only EU country which did not suffer recession during 2008
financial crisis) and join Eurozone just to help you avoid small inconvenience
with reimbursing business trip in foreign currency?

~~~
gonvaled
The Eurozone is suffering. All economic areas have up and downs. Being in a
shared monerary union, you sacrifize some advantages for others: we compromise
- I know, strange word.

We are building a stable, long term monetary union. We are learning, we are
improving and we will have a strong currency going forward.

Next time another economy area is in distress, as it will unavoidably happen,
remember about our crisis, and how we _together_ saw it through.

Nowadays it is fashionable to attack the Euro. When the crisis is mastered,
all know-it-alls will praise it. We do not need to care for the ones or the
others. We do our thing.

And yes, the most practical consequence for induvidual citizens is that I do
not care about currencies, at all. Except when I travel to Poland.

~~~
hx87
Thanks to the magic of currency markets, I don't have to care about currencies
either when I travel in Europe, even though I am American. Whenever I buy
something, I use my credit card, and the charges are automatically converted
to USD based on whatever the USD/EUR/GBP/etc rates are on that day.

The Eurozone can be a great idea, if some sort of fiscal union comes into
being; otherwise the Euro will always be undervalued in the North and
overvalued in the South, causing imbalances in investment and consumption.

~~~
gonvaled
So are the carrots you buy ecpensive? In april? Two years ago? Basically, you
go to the supermarke, get your carrots and say: whatever, lets just get over
with it.

Sure, you can get use to a new currency - it took us the best part of a decade
to stop thinking in our old national currencies in the eurozone, and some
people, and for some things, old currencies are still used mentally and in
conversation.

The good thing in the Eurozone is: I dont need to. A currency must, above all,
get out of my way.

~~~
hx87
> So are the carrots you buy ecpensive?

Not a difficult problem: I just look up the latest local-to-USD conversion
rates and do the conversion. If you have a largely cash economy, sure,
multiple currencies are a bit of a hassle, but with electronic payments and
on-the-fly currency conversion, you can do your accounting in whatever
currency you want. It does not get in your way. Having a permanently over- or
undervalued currency does.

~~~
gonvaled
Sure you do: the problem is that you dont have the feeling of the currency:
only when you pull your calculator and start typing numbers, you have an idea
how high or low prices are. I am talking about a walk in the supermarkez, or a
shopping mall, where you see lots of prices. Doing that en-masse and
continuosly is not feasible for an individual.

Until your google glasses are translating prices in real time, give me my
euro.

~~~
hx87
It takes me about a week to get the feeling of a currency. It's more
problematic if exchange rates fluctuate by large amounts, but a daily lookup
takes care of that.

------
carlmcqueen
Very well written, I think this is a great argument once you're comfortable.

Once you have some stability you can take a breath and enjoy a good book and
have time to think and appreciate the value of knowledge.

However, before that, and those who are disproportionately being kept out of
comfort by the current system (working two jobs to make rent, choosing which
bills to pay, etc) don't yet have that luxury to rethink wealth.

------
Mendenhall
It seems his premise is "Rethink wealth so you feel better about giving your
money to others" I find it well meaning but naive to human nature. It might as
well have been called "Ignore human nature". Wealth stems from "taking"
resources and wanting to survive. We are in a petri dish of limited resources,
with more and more people consuming. Good luck with that math.

~~~
zwischenzug
It's also human nature to share. cf Kropotkin and studies of altruism in human
beings. Wealth, as a concept is very much up for grabs. Is it accumulation of
resources, the increase of security of resources, the fulfilment of
psychological desires, the control of psychological desires, the stable
passing on of genes?

------
fit2rule
As an aside, in order to distract myself from my own local decadence,
particularly at night when its time to sleep, I have been entertaining myself
with an investigation of literature and cultural artifacts pertaining to the
lives and living of the 18th Century, or at least: any particular culture
beyond the fringe of the last 100 years.

Its only a trivial pursuit, nothing in particularly serious, academic, or even
principled. Rather just something to think about before embarking into the
nightly darkened garden, of thought and mystery.

I can't help but think it is such a tragedy just how artificial it all is, and
has been, for the last few centuries. We have created immense artifice;
extreme transfer of responsibility and control at very mechanical, practical,
energetic levels of human discourse. The cities we have created, the means we
have endeavoured to make available to all, or none, or at least many, simply
"to get there" in the human equation: it continues to impress a fiction upon
the land. Utterly fictional.

Consider the average airline passenger. How they manage to navigate the
labyrinthine means by which the space was navigated, to go from New York to
Tokyo. (Or any other place, perhaps Ankara to Cairo, if you like. It doesn't
_really_ matter.)

How extreme we have become, we species. That we do not acknowledge our
principle accomplishments, beyond all else the universe pitches against us,
while follying and crippling ourselves with ghosts and fakery.

Kill the fakery. If it works, sell it. Sell the hell out of it. Humans
perpetuate technology first, bullshit second. Never forget the complete nature
of the theorem.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Can't imagine why you were downvoted for this. You're spot on to read very old
books; my godfather - a historian - insisted on reading books only written by
dead people. He may have been a salty old man for the time that I knew him,
but he was never unhappy.

I have recently begun listening to a LOT of classical music. Every time I
casually new-tab over to YouTube and load up a Tchaikovsky playlist, I think
to myself: "Not even the richest kings of Renaissance Europe could instantly
summon a complete orchestra and hear a composer's entire repertoire played
perfectly every time - yet that can be my reality whenever I wish."

Really reminds me I have so much to be grateful for.

~~~
sevenless
Probably because it came across as pretentious.

Recommendations on good history books?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Herodotus's Histories is probably the best place to start. Maybe 50% of it is
accurate, as it was common among historians of the day to create functional
exchanges of historical figures to simulate the debate of ideas, such as the
Persian Magi debating on the kind of government Persia ought to have, between
aristocracy, democracy, and autocracy.

Also, and while it is very very modern, John Green's Crash Course World
History (and US history) is a great place to start so you have context when
you delve deeper.

------
rm_-rf_slash
There will always be people who take great pleasure and submit extraordinary
effort to accumulate massive wealth. These efforts cannot be ignored in the
prosperous society we have today. We take refrigeration and electricity and
indoor plumbing - unheard of for the Founding Fathers - for granted, and
perceive those without it as living in extreme poverty.

It is only when the pursuit of individual prosperity comes at the expense and
suffering of others that limitations - regulations, taxes - are warranted.

It is a good thing we have a system that incentivizes the creation of wealth.
But when the wealthy pull up the ladder, they sow the seeds of their own
destruction and suffering for themselves and many others.

One need only look at the history of Venice to see how greed and selfishness
can turn a once-vibrant and upwardly-mobile society into a permanent has-been.

~~~
gonvaled
Poverty _is_ a relative term: somebody without a shirt is poor because nearly
everybody has a shirt, not because shirts are absolutely necessary.

Edit: not sure why I am being downvoted. Take the poorest man on Earth today;
he is richer than most men alive 20 thousand years ago. I would argue that he
would conquer any ancient society.

~~~
Retra
I don't think you understand how poor the poorest man on Earth today is, nor
how ineffective that wealth would be for gaining influence in other cultures.

~~~
gonvaled
Maybe I got carried away. Maybe not the poorest, but a very poor man today has
resources at his disposal (via modern societies, no matter how poor) vastly
greater than the resources a very rich man could get millenia ago. He can be
cured of various deseases, can move around with incredible vehicles, can talk
with people very far away from him, has incredible amount of knowledge at his
disposal, and _already knows_ things (“the Earth is round“) which are very
valuable (as in “we invested huge amounts of resources to get to know this“).
His power is enormous.

Human nature is such that we feel poor because we only have a bike, while our
neighbor has a Porsche, without realizing that a bike is an incredible thing.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
For a remote Afghan, or even a rural Cambodian, life is pretty much the same
as it has been for thousands of years. The wealth and means exist to feed and
clothe and shelter all humans on earth, but those who actually have means _at
their disposal_ choose instead to spend the money on wars and opulence.

Plenty of Middle-class Americans deny that the earth is round, even with all
the knowledge of the world at their fingertips.

Potentially, yes, the world is miraculous compared to the past. But for those
who are not born into some of that gradual wealth creation (as most Westerners
were), they are still very poor and very exploited. Or they are too remote to
bother with and so life is hardly any different compared with 100 or 500 years
ago.

~~~
gonvaled
We are talking about different things: you talk about somebody alive today,
but basically living in the past. His peers are those in times past, so he is
as rich or poor as they were.

I talk about your average “very poor guy“ in a modern society: he is just poor
compared to his peers, but rich compared to a lot of people.

But no matter who we are talking about: my point all along is that being poor
or rich is a relative measure. To say that a person is poor, you need to state
“compared to“. Usually we implicitely compare to the “average contemporary
citizen“

------
jernfrost
I think Hawking has said many important things about wealth and economy in the
past. Many economists are very narrowly focused, not considering the bigger
picture.

Society and the field of economics have always had to make major changes in
response to significant technological change. The industrial revolution ripped
apart the old order and fundamentally changed the way people thought about
economics.

As Hawking has talked about, I think AI as well will make fundamental and
lasting changes to the field of economics, and to how we organize our society.

E.g. I don't think libertarian ideology can survive an AI world. Free market
economics makes most sense for the present world but socialist economics might
actually make more sense in an AI world.

It depends on how things evolve. Either a rich elite will end up controlling
all the means of production without needing workers, creating masses of
unemployment, or we end up in a world where everybody is a capitalist. Nobody
works, but everybody might own capital they invest in production.

The outcome will depend largely on the marginal cost of production. If 3D
printers, robots, AI etc allow production to happen at small scale with
similar marginal cost to that of large scale production the capitalism might
get dramatically democratized. If not instead we risk a Blande Runner like
Dystopia.

------
jcbeard
Will be very interesting to see if the UK economy can actually recover at all
with all of the acquisitions. There's a fire sale of sorts at the moment on
UK's most valuable companies. The promises of the current prime minister to
prevent the few big employers in the UK from being purchased have pretty much
evaporated...such is the way of the snake oil salesman. The free flow of super
smart labor in the schengen zone was a net positive for most UK companies, and
for the foreign labor that contributed to the UK economy. The trick, as
Hawking says is to ensure the fruits of the globalized economy is shared by
all. In the US we have a huge issue with churn. Industries like coal will
never return, however people like Trump promise that they will. What we need
is a cheaper university system that provides a means for the children of those
former coal miners to move onto something else (or even the miners
themselves). Right now, if you're an out of work person in an industry that is
gone...there's no way to move on. You can take out massive loans, or join the
military to get free education. Those are about the only two practical options
for most people (I for one took the military option), and that's not good
enough. The managed capitalism that we've developed works well, we just have
to remember that the government's role is to manage the economy...not to run
the economy. Government should foster an environment for everyone to succeed,
not just those who have a more favorable starting place in life (like Trump).
Right now people are upset, mad, and often without hope. While I (and just
about any other person with critical thinking skills) can punch holes in just
about every one of Trumps lightweight arguments, these holes are ignored by
the masses because they want to believe that there is a magic cure to what
ails them. Unfortunately, like the magic pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow, Trump's magical cure doesn't exist...just as the pot of gold that
sold brexit will never be found.

------
hackaflocka
I don't understand the reaction to Brexit. It was democracy in action! These
things happen, and it's alright when they do!

There are so many countries that are not in the EU. Are they all doomed?

~~~
Jtsummers
[NB: Not an opinion on Brexit]

To say that Brexit is democracy in action, you're suggesting that that alone
makes it a good thing. Democracy in action has gotten us many terrible things
as well. Democracy, in this form, is mob rule. If the mob is well-informed, it
can go well. When the mob is not, it can go very badly.

~~~
zo1
>" _If the mob is well-informed, it can go well. When the mob is not, it can
go very badly._ "

That only applies if you have some sort of arbiter to decide whether or not
the "mob" is informed. And if you do that, you might as well have a
dictatorship, as the arbiter can decide which side s/he thinks is well
informed. Or rather, they could decide that groups X,Y and Z are not informed,
therefore they aren't allowed to vote.

I know you may not be suggesting that explicitly, but that is the type of
thing that I would argue follows from your line of thinking.

~~~
sevenless
Are you saying that objective fact and truth is equivalent to a dictatorship?

Are anti-vaxxers living in a dictatorship because we don't give their claims
equal weight to those of doctors and scientists?

~~~
therealjumbo
Are you implying that a vote for Brexit is equivalent to being an anti-vaxxer?

~~~
sevenless
Not equivalent but comparable in certain ways. The claim I am responding to is
that the entire concept of "expertise" is equivalent to a dictatorship.

------
acd
For anyone from United Kingdom or curious I can recommend taking a look at the
Positive money movement which is about monetary reform.

Posetive money [http://positivemoney.org/](http://positivemoney.org/)

------
thefastlane
"Does money matter?"

i will check with my landlord and let you know.

~~~
zwischenzug
I assume this is meant as sarcasm against a supposed argument against the
importance of money.

Hawking argues that money very much does matter.

~~~
mjevans
I find the argument to be slightly different.

Today money matters in so much as getting things that need to be done to
happen. Things like quality medical care, a place to live, and 'workers' to
get those things done.

Money past that, money as a form of arbitrary luxury, is far too transitory.
Once you reach that point you have very little marginal change in your
situation, status signaling, or other measures; you have reached saturation on
the 'good' money can do for you.

I think that most of the people who support Universal-BIG just want to get rid
of the wasteful feedback loops in the low end of that equation. Everyone
should have good food, good living areas, and good healthcare as a member of
society. It establishes a more level playing field for all other activities
and removes a lot of the wasteful expenditures of time and energy. It also
cuts down on the 'alternative' means of achieving such basic support (ending
up in jail or revolving hospitalization and being a drain on society).

Does this mean money should cease existing? No, but for a lot of things it
would no longer be related.

------
xyzzy4
The problem with the EU is it has more regulations than there are atoms in the
Milky Way.

~~~
vkou
And running a business that serves N countries that don't have a common
regulatory framework is dealing with N times as many regulations.

Observe the nightmare that are state-regulated industries in the US. (I'm
looking at you, health insurance, finance, etc.)

Now, imagine if each state had its own FDA...

