You have to be rich to be poor.

[Yeekim]

There seems to be some miscommunication here.

The immediate reason why people enter markets to compete with each other is the profit motive

I agree with this.
Unequal distribution of wealth = unequal distribution of power = social stratification.

 

[El_Machinae]

Aelf, you're reading his Yeekim's post differently than I am.

 

[aelf]

There seems to be some miscommunication here.

I agree with this.
Unequal distribution of wealth = unequal distribution of power = social stratification.

Sorry, but social stratification is a step beyond simple unequal distribution of power. Ever heard of elitism? That comes first, then measures to cement some people's positions. After that, it doesn't matter if the people who are entrenched are actually quite bad. They'd be there for at least some time. Witness royalty or rich heirs (eg. Paris Hilton). How do you think the nobility arose?

There's no denying it. Social stratification is bad for competition just as fewer producers are. That's the best analogy.

Aelf, you're reading his Yeekim's post differently than I am.

I dunno how you're reading it, but something tells me you're mistaken.

 

[Yeekim]

Sorry, but social stratification is a step beyond simple unequal distribution of power. Ever heard of elitism? That comes first, then measures to cement some people's positions. After that, it doesn't matter if the people who are entrenched are actually quite bad. They'd be there for at least some time. Witness royalty or rich heirs (eg. Paris Hilton). How do you think the nobility arose?

I am not sure whether this is a distinction really worth making, or if you can really draw a fine line between those two phases, but I'm all right with that, after all it changes nothing.
Soc.st. may be a step beyond simple unequal distribution of power (or wealth) if you wish, but in this case it is a step that follows inevitably - quite like you explained, actually.

There's no denying it. Social stratification is bad for competition just as fewer producers are. That's the best analogy.

But the two are still inseparable.
Competition inevitably creates unequal distribution of wealth and/or power, this in turn inevitably leads to social stratification. Make it impossible for either later phase to happen and you remove the incentive to compete.

 

[aelf]

I am not sure whether this is a distinction really worth making, or if you can really draw a fine line between those two phases, but I'm all right with that, after all it changes nothing.
Soc.st. may be a step beyond simple unequal distribution of power (or wealth) if you wish, but in this case it is a step that follows inevitably - quite like you explained, actually.

Is. Ought. Yeah.

But the two are still inseparable.
Competition inevitably creates unequal distribution of wealth and/or power, this in turn inevitably leads to social stratification. Make it impossible for either later phase to happen and you remove the incentive to compete.

It's not inseparable when it's not one and the same thing.

And this is like saying companies wouldn't compete if it's impossible for them to become monopolies or cartels. It's not even realistic.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am not sure whether this is a distinction really worth making, or if you can really draw a fine line between those two phases, but I'm all right with that, after all it changes nothing.

It's actually very significant. Social strafication implies far more than the mere unequal distribution of power, it specifically implies an ecomic scenario in which oppurtunities are defined by background.
A theoretical society may exist which is both unequal and meritocratic, as long as provision were made to give all members equal oppurtunities. By contrast, a stratified society assigns power, de facto or de jure, on the basis of economic and social background, whether by allowing only the oppurtunities which may be provided by inherited wealth, or by perscribing levels of power to certain classes. The extreme of the de jure system is an authoritarian caste system, while capitalism tends to result in the emergence of a de facto system. Other systems, such as European feudalism, sit somewhere in between the two.

 

[Narz]

I dunno how you're reading it, but something tells me you're mistaken.

If you want to know what Internet forums are all about this is the post.

 

[aelf]

If you want to know what Internet forums are all about this is the post.

Opaque comment begets opaque reply.