Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Inequality
- Thread starter Borachio
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Have you ever noticed that the people insisting that inequality is not a bad thing are usually the ones benefiting from it?
I mean, that doesn't mean they're wrong.
But it seems very convenient.
I mean, that doesn't mean they're wrong.
But it seems very convenient.
Narz
keeping it real
Well, everyone on CFC benefits from inequality. If wealth were distributed more evenly we'd all be poorer.
Yeah unless you're making less than 12000 dollars a year you're "benefiting" from inequality, in the context of your post.
Well, the trick to that is that the people who are saying huge inequality is not bad would actually have greater actual purchasing power if there was somewhat less inequality.
She has a point, but it's a bit of a bait and switch. There's no doubt that investment begets wealth which both causes inequality AND raises living standards. The problem is that 'all property is currently owned'. That's where the inequality issues kicks in. If your job only pays enough to keep you alive, then the person who owns your company or your apartment or the grocery store will only get more and more wealthy BUT, there's no mechanism by which your wealth will increase. Now IF you had access to some additional assets to invest in (which includes surplus income), then any exogenous growth will benefit your ability to gain more absolute wealth.
There's a strong case to be made that diminishing farm sizes were a strong component of the Rwandan genocide. The economic growth just wasn't sufficient to make those plots capable of generating a living wage.
The key point is surplus wealth. You can only invest surplus wealth. And, by definition, a richer person will have more of it than a poor one. They can invest it very poorly, I'll grant, but at least they can invest it. You'll note, that advances that reduce the costs of living will go on to change the formulas BUT, there's the risk that other things will cost the 'cost of living' to increase.
There's a strong case to be made that diminishing farm sizes were a strong component of the Rwandan genocide. The economic growth just wasn't sufficient to make those plots capable of generating a living wage.
The key point is surplus wealth. You can only invest surplus wealth. And, by definition, a richer person will have more of it than a poor one. They can invest it very poorly, I'll grant, but at least they can invest it. You'll note, that advances that reduce the costs of living will go on to change the formulas BUT, there's the risk that other things will cost the 'cost of living' to increase.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Out of interest, what did she mean by "those like Piketty"?
Actually, It was Schumpeter who warned that capitalism, because of its success, would ultimately end in socialism because of the institutions it creates and intellectual (Piketty) and political class it promotes (Elizabeth Warren).
Just read their conversation yesterday.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Just read their conversation yesterday.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
So Schumpter was basically upside-down Marx?
Schumpter's most important contribution to economics was the idea that new products, processes, and services will displace older ones by being better and more relevant to the times. This is called 'creative destruction'. Schumpter's politics was fringe.
I think equality is a goal because the opportunity for prosperity should not be conditional on the circumstances of one's birth. I agree that the elimination of absolute poverty is also an important goal. Often what helps one goal, helps the other, and in a perfect society both goals would be achieved.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
That's in part because of the deflation Japan experiences: Deflation discourages debt. Since most debt is taken on by institutions that are already have a lot of equity to begin with (if you discount the debt), deflation prevents income redistribution to the rich.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Actually, it really wouldn't make any difference to me. I seem to be very firmly on the $12,000 a year global average (if I have that figure correct). And I've been here for the last decade.
Well, while this is literally true in terms of income, it might be a little bit misleading since there are other factors to take into account. It does get complicated.
Especially if you use a wide definition of wealth. There's cultural wealth to consider as well, I think. Maybe.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
High inequality at least adversely correlates with (and many people believe causes):
For just how long can we continue to ignore wide inequality (and even encourage it) between the highest and lowest incomes?
- low life expectancy,
- low maths and literacy,
- high imprisonment,
- high teenage birth rates,
- low levels of feelings of trust,
- high obesity,
- high mental illness,
- high drug addiction,
- high alcohol addiction, and
- low social mobility.
For just how long can we continue to ignore wide inequality (and even encourage it) between the highest and lowest incomes?
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
How do I benefit from other people having less? To put it another way, I have nothing to gain from making sure that others can't enjoy a standard of living comparable to those in the industrialized world.
