Economics is not zero sum in the long run, but in any given time, it is. And, people can bid up the price of essentials as they rise in wealth. A subsistence farmer can never compete with you for a barrel of oil, but a Chinese industrialist can.
Inequality
- Thread starter Borachio
- Start date
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
subsistence farmers don't use oil...
Most conservatives don't understand that. They think economics is a zero sum game. Plus, there's always the power issue. Most leaders throughout history would prefer to be poorer and cause others to be poorer just to maintain their power.
That's like, 99% of the point. The subsistence farmer doesn't compete with you for essentials. If that farmer ever becomes non-subsistence, then suddenly he's helping bid up the price of oil.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Hence "usually". Principled anti-egalitarians I have at least a little time for.
But the rise in wealth of Chinese industrialists means that the average Brazilian can now afford more barrels of oil, even if they also rose in price. Prosperity is good for everyone.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
I have becamed my city's (non-crowned) king , beat that if You can hahaha ! 
I already acknowledge that economics is not a zero sum game (very much!), but in any given snapshot, a rise in wealth elsewhere can cause a rise in the price of essentials. No matter how awesome it is that New York City is thriving in a global economy, the price of rent has still risen to the point where many people cannot actually afford it. Before this thriving, many people could afford NYC rent, even if their jobs didn't require literacy. Nowadays, good luck affording a Brownstone if you cannot read.
I think that inequality is unimportant as long as two conditions are met:
1) The poor can't be too poor, and there can't be two many of them. So everyone should get at least basic necessities and there should be inequality spread out, i.e. not a bi-modal wealth distribution.
2) There should be a high level of economic mobility both up and down. Optimally the wealth of a persons parents should have zero predictive power over there wealth. That is obviously impossible in a free society, but we need to strive for equality in opportunity, over equality in result. A static aristocracy of the super wealthy is very bad for innovation and capitalism itself.
1) The poor can't be too poor, and there can't be two many of them. So everyone should get at least basic necessities and there should be inequality spread out, i.e. not a bi-modal wealth distribution.
2) There should be a high level of economic mobility both up and down. Optimally the wealth of a persons parents should have zero predictive power over there wealth. That is obviously impossible in a free society, but we need to strive for equality in opportunity, over equality in result. A static aristocracy of the super wealthy is very bad for innovation and capitalism itself.
Perfection
The Great Head.
You get to lord your stuff over them like a smug jerk.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
That's right.
Very often rich people aren't too concerned about how much they actually have; only that they have more than everyone else.
And, after all, if you have more money than anyone else, everybody else must do your bidding in order to get money.
I think power and money are interchangeable. They may even be exactly the same thing.
Very often rich people aren't too concerned about how much they actually have; only that they have more than everyone else.
And, after all, if you have more money than anyone else, everybody else must do your bidding in order to get money.
I think power and money are interchangeable. They may even be exactly the same thing.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
There are approximately 360 billions of people on this "tears holllow" , and sadly not everyone is equal 
I don't think this necessarily follows. Hell, IMF research has given a lot of traction to the idea that high inequality makes periods of growth shorter & more fragile.
And that's just income.
What about them?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I admit that I have trouble taking anything that starts this way seriously. On the face, this is akin to repealing gravity.
I would not consider either part of that "damning" (was the pun unintentional?). The libertarian part appears to be at odds with the statement. The Christian part definitely is.
LOL
J
They are like minded. His prescription of a 30% global tax and 80% in the USA is dangerous and unenforceable. Even some of his data is dubious. Her support and promotion of his work is pure politicking.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Dangerous? And "unenforceable" is IMO just a lazy argument.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
Yes
"The valley of tears" - here on this earth 
Human population is approximately 369 bilion peaople.
