|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On December 01 2017 01:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax. This is why I am on board with an estate tax. Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it. Obviously the rich, by definition, are the ones who have the resources that can fund public works projects. But you still haven't really gotten to the key issue of why wealth or income inequality is intrinsically bad. I answered this question already: On November 30 2017 14:40 Mohdoo wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Productivity goes down and reliance on government assistance goes up. It's just a matter of if the government or the rich foot the bill. But it goes beyond who covers the bill because once people enter into poverty, they also become less healthy, happy and motivated. This leads to higher medical costs overall, which disproportionately negatively impacts people in poverty. But there are many costs beyond medical costs. When people are able to stay above a minimum level, this self fueling, negative net drain to society is prevented. It makes humans significantly less overall efficient and valuable when they are allowed to dip too low. It's like getting your oil changed. Paying to keep your oil changed prevents the engine from needing to be replaced. Similarly, keeping people above the poverty line prevents poverty-induced effects that make poverty worse. Band-Aids are cheaper than treating and infection. Etc. To be clear, there are no problems simply with people being too rich. The issue is that too many people are too poor. People engines who don't have their oil changed become a net drain rather than a wealth creator. Investment in bringing people out of poverty creates wealth and prevents drain. So long as that is done, it doesn't matter if others are even more insanely rich. The issue is that a lot of people really need to be getting more help. You're framing the issue incorrectly by pretending the only issue is someone having a ton of money. That is only an issue because so many people need more support. If these people were afloat and doing well, no one would care. When we push for things like food stamps, it is because people need help buying food. It is not to bring the rich down a notch. A couple things here. First, why are you drawing a dichotomy between the government footing the bill or the rich footing the bill? The government, by definition, doesn't generate wealth. All government resources are derived through the taxation of private assets and income streams -- ie taxation on the rich who are generating wealth. Second, you've made a very interestingly conservative argument in pointing out that the problem isn't with people being too rich, but with people being too poor. So what you're arguing against isn't wealth inequality, but rather poverty. Given his recent posting, Mohdoo is going to be about as conservative as I am in the next 5-10 years.
People are poor for a variety of reasons. Some of them systematic, some of them from negligence and many other things. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter why they are poor. Poverty increases crime, medical costs, security/policing costs and tons of other stuff. Similar to the situation where people without insurance end up with enormous medical bills that the hospital end up having to eat, it's not like this cost is ever confined to the poor. With a less productive workforce, the state also suffers. Local residents also suffer from increased crime, homelessness and many other effects of poverty.
I have a pretty extreme disdain for a lot poor people. Mainly because I come from an extremely poor upbringing and ask myself why others can't do what I did. But my experience growing up has shown me that asking poor people to do better is simply retarded. It won't happen. In the meantime, we've got all these poorly performing humans who are costing us a lot of money. But it doesn't matter, because the effect of their existence is still the same. If they are cared for, they cost me less money than if they are uncared for. The effects of their poverty greatly outweigh the costs of keeping them afloat.
Food stamps and various other social programs have been studied to death and shown to be a positive financial investment. It doesn't matter if I think of poor people as shitty. Their impact will never be confined to themselves. We all suffer because of poverty and we can save ourselves money by helping them stay afloat.
The difference between our philosophies is that I don't care about ethics or fairness when it comes to inequality. I don't care that someone who made a series of stupid decisions is now eating part of my paycheck. If they did not eat that part of my paycheck, they would actually eat more of my paycheck. I am saving money by voting in favor of social programs.
My impression is that you have an easy time disregarding the wealth of information available to you regarding social program investment payout because you fundamentally disagree with the ethics and fairness of good people giving their money to shitty people.
I think you have a really hard time swallowing the idea of losing money to people who have done a really shit job at managing their lives. But what you aren't considering is that even if we eliminated every social program, you would still be paying a lot of money, indirectly, because of people living in poverty. The costs of poverty are INCREASED, not decreased, by eliminating social programs.
|
|
|
On December 01 2017 01:56 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax. This is why I am on board with an estate tax. Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it. Obviously the rich, by definition, are the ones who have the resources that can fund public works projects. But you still haven't really gotten to the key issue of why wealth or income inequality is intrinsically bad. I answered this question already: On November 30 2017 14:40 Mohdoo wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Productivity goes down and reliance on government assistance goes up. It's just a matter of if the government or the rich foot the bill. But it goes beyond who covers the bill because once people enter into poverty, they also become less healthy, happy and motivated. This leads to higher medical costs overall, which disproportionately negatively impacts people in poverty. But there are many costs beyond medical costs. When people are able to stay above a minimum level, this self fueling, negative net drain to society is prevented. It makes humans significantly less overall efficient and valuable when they are allowed to dip too low. It's like getting your oil changed. Paying to keep your oil changed prevents the engine from needing to be replaced. Similarly, keeping people above the poverty line prevents poverty-induced effects that make poverty worse. Band-Aids are cheaper than treating and infection. Etc. To be clear, there are no problems simply with people being too rich. The issue is that too many people are too poor. People engines who don't have their oil changed become a net drain rather than a wealth creator. Investment in bringing people out of poverty creates wealth and prevents drain. So long as that is done, it doesn't matter if others are even more insanely rich. The issue is that a lot of people really need to be getting more help. You're framing the issue incorrectly by pretending the only issue is someone having a ton of money. That is only an issue because so many people need more support. If these people were afloat and doing well, no one would care. When we push for things like food stamps, it is because people need help buying food. It is not to bring the rich down a notch. A couple things here. First, why are you drawing a dichotomy between the government footing the bill or the rich footing the bill? The government, by definition, doesn't generate wealth. All government resources are derived through the taxation of private assets and income streams -- ie taxation on the rich who are generating wealth. Second, you've made a very interestingly conservative argument in pointing out that the problem isn't with people being too rich, but with people being too poor. So what you're arguing against isn't wealth inequality, but rather poverty. Given his recent posting, Mohdoo is going to be about as conservative as I am in the next 5-10 years. Poverty and wealth inequality are inextricably linked though. Arguing against poverty is only viable when there is huge wealth inequality, otherwise you are just arguing against low standards of living.
No, poverty and wealth inequality are not inextricably linked. There are plenty of countries around the world where there is not a lot of wealth inequality (because there is no wealth) but there is plenty of poverty. Contrast that with the US where there is minimal "poverty" (our poor have cellphones and flatscreen tvs) but a helluva lot of wealth inequality. If you are truly concerned about wealth inequality, then by definition, you are concerned with both the upper and lower limits of the wealth disparity. If you are only concerned with the lower limit, then what you are arguing against is poverty, and not wealth inequality.
|
What a coincidence that he is now Hospitalized due to "stress".
|
On December 01 2017 02:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What a coincidence that he is now Hospitalized due to "stress".
Meaning what? You think they are pretending he is sick or something?
|
On December 01 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 01 2017 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax. This is why I am on board with an estate tax. Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it. Obviously the rich, by definition, are the ones who have the resources that can fund public works projects. But you still haven't really gotten to the key issue of why wealth or income inequality is intrinsically bad. I answered this question already: On November 30 2017 14:40 Mohdoo wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Productivity goes down and reliance on government assistance goes up. It's just a matter of if the government or the rich foot the bill. But it goes beyond who covers the bill because once people enter into poverty, they also become less healthy, happy and motivated. This leads to higher medical costs overall, which disproportionately negatively impacts people in poverty. But there are many costs beyond medical costs. When people are able to stay above a minimum level, this self fueling, negative net drain to society is prevented. It makes humans significantly less overall efficient and valuable when they are allowed to dip too low. It's like getting your oil changed. Paying to keep your oil changed prevents the engine from needing to be replaced. Similarly, keeping people above the poverty line prevents poverty-induced effects that make poverty worse. Band-Aids are cheaper than treating and infection. Etc. To be clear, there are no problems simply with people being too rich. The issue is that too many people are too poor. People engines who don't have their oil changed become a net drain rather than a wealth creator. Investment in bringing people out of poverty creates wealth and prevents drain. So long as that is done, it doesn't matter if others are even more insanely rich. The issue is that a lot of people really need to be getting more help. You're framing the issue incorrectly by pretending the only issue is someone having a ton of money. That is only an issue because so many people need more support. If these people were afloat and doing well, no one would care. When we push for things like food stamps, it is because people need help buying food. It is not to bring the rich down a notch. A couple things here. First, why are you drawing a dichotomy between the government footing the bill or the rich footing the bill? The government, by definition, doesn't generate wealth. All government resources are derived through the taxation of private assets and income streams -- ie taxation on the rich who are generating wealth. Second, you've made a very interestingly conservative argument in pointing out that the problem isn't with people being too rich, but with people being too poor. So what you're arguing against isn't wealth inequality, but rather poverty. Given his recent posting, Mohdoo is going to be about as conservative as I am in the next 5-10 years. Poverty and wealth inequality are inextricably linked though. Arguing against poverty is only viable when there is huge wealth inequality, otherwise you are just arguing against low standards of living. No, poverty and wealth inequality are not inextricably linked. There are plenty of countries around the world where there is not a lot of wealth inequality (because there is no wealth) but there is plenty of poverty. Contrast that with the US where there is minimal "poverty" (our poor have cellphones and flatscreen tvs) but a helluva lot of wealth inequality. If you are truly concerned about wealth inequality, then by definition, you are concerned with both the upper and lower limits of the wealth disparity. If you are only concerned with the lower limit, then what you are arguing against is poverty, and not wealth inequality.
Arguing against poverty is moot if there are no resources to fix the problem. Wealth inequality gives life to this side of the debate because we have a problem that could feasibly be fixed (or at least be helped).
|
On December 01 2017 01:40 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:32 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 01:19 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 23:26 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:
Also, I am really fucking amused, in a cynical way, that Danglars and xDaunt are brushing off the sort of civil unrest that results from wealth inequality as "issues derived from jealousy." I mean, sure, poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry so that their children don't have to are probably jealous if they walk past an expensive restaurant and look at the well dressed people in there eating well, but is it wrong for them to be jealous? If they up and revolt, like the French Revolution, it's not because of "intrinsic human jealously." It's the emotion people justifiably feel when they become aware that there is enough food/housing/whatever to go around, but the super rich are hoarding so much of it that there's not enough left for everyone else. You’re talking about the living standards of the poor, not wealth inequality. It’s a common mistake and an even more common dodge. If the top 1% get an extra billion, that doesn’t mean the chicken magically disappeared off the table of a poor person. Good joke though transitioning to justifiable human jealousy in a question that didn’t dismiss it as a consideration, but laid it aside temporarily to see if other reasons existed. Poverty is defined by anyone who should be listened to on the subject (which, by the way, includes Adam Smith) as a relative phenomenon. When we say 'the amount of poverty in the United State is X%', that's because we are looking at X% of people being relatively poorer than the rest of their communities. They might still have chicken on the table, but they will be excluded economically and socially from various things and as such are defined as being in poverty. Good thing we were talking wealth inequality, not poverty, and poor people not getting enough food to eat, not their economic and social exclusion. Increasing wealth inequality leads to increasing poverty. I mean yes poor people may have enough to eat (though both hunger and homelessness seem to be on the rise in the USA, and certainly are in the U.K.), but when people discuss the problems associated with inequality is very rarely in relation to the bread line. If poverty is relative, then the distribution of wealth within a society affects how many people are in poverty. I would hope that is obvious. Rich people are pretty skilled at increasing their money. You could have the best poverty situation on the planet, and inequality will still mean that rich guy investing his money cranks up inequality no matter what the fuck happens to the poorest of the poor. That's a shitty metric. Well, unfortunately it's the metric that the whole world uses - as advocated by Adam Smith, and then later Galbraith, Townsend and a number of other sociologists. It is the accepted way of defining poverty and is the reason why income redistribution through whatever method is the best way of combating poverty (alongside education and healthcare). If you accept poverty as a bad thing, and poverty as relative, then it is hard not to avoid at this conclusion. Of course you could choose not to accept poverty as relative, but many of the bad things that are thought to result from poverty are thought to result from this relative definition of it, and you would essentially be discarding these negative effects as not worth caring about.
Nah, it’s been brought up heavily in the politics of envy starting in the latter half of the 20th century. Poverty can be a bad thing, but there will always be a lower 20% of incomes (no eliminating poverty if that was the definition) and any free society is bound to produce unequal outcomes (if different patterns of behavior failed to achieve different results, why not take away the freedom). Your appeal to authority is not accepted. I want to know if there’s jobs, social services, food on the table, and housing and none of those is encapsulated in income inequality but all of those are very important to poverty.
|
On December 01 2017 02:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 02:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What a coincidence that he is now Hospitalized due to "stress". Meaning what? You think they are pretending he is sick or something?
Yes, this a tried and true tactics from celebrities to politicians in this country. Asshat needs to resign.
|
United States42283 Posts
In a free market capitalist system the market will produce goods and services in accordance with the preferences of the dollars being spent within that market.
If one person is spending as many dollars as a million other people combined then his whim is allocated the same proportion of the total labour as their needs.
Poverty within a rich nation is a resource allocation problem. Resource allocation problems within capitalism come down to wealth inequality. Nobody ever starved in a Walmart with money in their pocket.
|
On December 01 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax. This is why I am on board with an estate tax. Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it. Obviously the rich, by definition, are the ones who have the resources that can fund public works projects. But you still haven't really gotten to the key issue of why wealth or income inequality is intrinsically bad. I answered this question already: On November 30 2017 14:40 Mohdoo wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Productivity goes down and reliance on government assistance goes up. It's just a matter of if the government or the rich foot the bill. But it goes beyond who covers the bill because once people enter into poverty, they also become less healthy, happy and motivated. This leads to higher medical costs overall, which disproportionately negatively impacts people in poverty. But there are many costs beyond medical costs. When people are able to stay above a minimum level, this self fueling, negative net drain to society is prevented. It makes humans significantly less overall efficient and valuable when they are allowed to dip too low. It's like getting your oil changed. Paying to keep your oil changed prevents the engine from needing to be replaced. Similarly, keeping people above the poverty line prevents poverty-induced effects that make poverty worse. Band-Aids are cheaper than treating and infection. Etc. To be clear, there are no problems simply with people being too rich. The issue is that too many people are too poor. People engines who don't have their oil changed become a net drain rather than a wealth creator. Investment in bringing people out of poverty creates wealth and prevents drain. So long as that is done, it doesn't matter if others are even more insanely rich. The issue is that a lot of people really need to be getting more help. You're framing the issue incorrectly by pretending the only issue is someone having a ton of money. That is only an issue because so many people need more support. If these people were afloat and doing well, no one would care. When we push for things like food stamps, it is because people need help buying food. It is not to bring the rich down a notch. A couple things here. First, why are you drawing a dichotomy between the government footing the bill or the rich footing the bill? The government, by definition, doesn't generate wealth. All government resources are derived through the taxation of private assets and income streams -- ie taxation on the rich who are generating wealth. Second, you've made a very interestingly conservative argument in pointing out that the problem isn't with people being too rich, but with people being too poor. So what you're arguing against isn't wealth inequality, but rather poverty. Given his recent posting, Mohdoo is going to be about as conservative as I am in the next 5-10 years. People are poor for a variety of reasons. Some of them systematic, some of them from negligence and many other things. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter why they are poor. Poverty increases crime, medical costs, security/policing costs and tons of other stuff. Similar to the situation where people without insurance end up with enormous medical bills that the hospital end up having to eat, it's not like this cost is ever confined to the poor. With a less productive workforce, the state also suffers. Local residents also suffer from increased crime, homelessness and many other effects of poverty. I have a pretty extreme disdain for a lot poor people. Mainly because I come from an extremely poor upbringing and ask myself why others can't do what I did. But my experience growing up has shown me that asking poor people to do better is simply retarded. It won't happen. In the meantime, we've got all these poorly performing humans who are costing us a lot of money. But it doesn't matter, because the effect of their existence is still the same. If they are cared for, they cost me less money than if they are uncared for. The effects of their poverty greatly outweigh the costs of keeping them afloat. Food stamps and various other social programs have been studied to death and shown to be a positive financial investment. It doesn't matter if I think of poor people as shitty. Their impact will never be confined to themselves. We all suffer because of poverty and we can save ourselves money by helping them stay afloat. The difference between our philosophies is that I don't care about ethics or fairness when it comes to inequality. I don't care that someone who made a series of stupid decisions is now eating part of my paycheck. If they did not eat that part of my paycheck, they would actually eat more of my paycheck. I am saving money by voting in favor of social programs. My impression is that you have an easy time disregarding the wealth of information available to you regarding social program investment payout because you fundamentally disagree with the ethics and fairness of good people giving their money to shitty people. I think you have a really hard time swallowing the idea of losing money to people who have done a really shit job at managing their lives. But what you aren't considering is that even if we eliminated every social program, you would still be paying a lot of money, indirectly, because of people living in poverty. The costs of poverty are INCREASED, not decreased, by eliminating social programs.
This may surprise you, but I actually am in agreement with your general position here. Like you, I don't see wealth inequality as being an inherent problem so as much as a necessary feature of our system that fuels economic growth. However, recognizing that people can be inherently shitty (ie jealous), some degree of wealth redistribution must occur to politically placate the lower classes and to minimize poverty.
|
On December 01 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 01 2017 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax. This is why I am on board with an estate tax. Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it. Obviously the rich, by definition, are the ones who have the resources that can fund public works projects. But you still haven't really gotten to the key issue of why wealth or income inequality is intrinsically bad. I answered this question already: On November 30 2017 14:40 Mohdoo wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Productivity goes down and reliance on government assistance goes up. It's just a matter of if the government or the rich foot the bill. But it goes beyond who covers the bill because once people enter into poverty, they also become less healthy, happy and motivated. This leads to higher medical costs overall, which disproportionately negatively impacts people in poverty. But there are many costs beyond medical costs. When people are able to stay above a minimum level, this self fueling, negative net drain to society is prevented. It makes humans significantly less overall efficient and valuable when they are allowed to dip too low. It's like getting your oil changed. Paying to keep your oil changed prevents the engine from needing to be replaced. Similarly, keeping people above the poverty line prevents poverty-induced effects that make poverty worse. Band-Aids are cheaper than treating and infection. Etc. To be clear, there are no problems simply with people being too rich. The issue is that too many people are too poor. People engines who don't have their oil changed become a net drain rather than a wealth creator. Investment in bringing people out of poverty creates wealth and prevents drain. So long as that is done, it doesn't matter if others are even more insanely rich. The issue is that a lot of people really need to be getting more help. You're framing the issue incorrectly by pretending the only issue is someone having a ton of money. That is only an issue because so many people need more support. If these people were afloat and doing well, no one would care. When we push for things like food stamps, it is because people need help buying food. It is not to bring the rich down a notch. A couple things here. First, why are you drawing a dichotomy between the government footing the bill or the rich footing the bill? The government, by definition, doesn't generate wealth. All government resources are derived through the taxation of private assets and income streams -- ie taxation on the rich who are generating wealth. Second, you've made a very interestingly conservative argument in pointing out that the problem isn't with people being too rich, but with people being too poor. So what you're arguing against isn't wealth inequality, but rather poverty. Given his recent posting, Mohdoo is going to be about as conservative as I am in the next 5-10 years. Poverty and wealth inequality are inextricably linked though. Arguing against poverty is only viable when there is huge wealth inequality, otherwise you are just arguing against low standards of living. No, poverty and wealth inequality are not inextricably linked. There are plenty of countries around the world where there is not a lot of wealth inequality (because there is no wealth) but there is plenty of poverty. Contrast that with the US where there is minimal "poverty" (our poor have cellphones and flatscreen tvs) but a helluva lot of wealth inequality. If you are truly concerned about wealth inequality, then by definition, you are concerned with both the upper and lower limits of the wealth disparity. If you are only concerned with the lower limit, then what you are arguing against is poverty, and not wealth inequality.
There's...actually very few countries with "no wealth". If you look up the poorest nations of the world, you can still find a list of exorbitantly rich individuals who made their fortune in that country.
|
On December 01 2017 02:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:40 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 01:32 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 01:19 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 23:26 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:
Also, I am really fucking amused, in a cynical way, that Danglars and xDaunt are brushing off the sort of civil unrest that results from wealth inequality as "issues derived from jealousy." I mean, sure, poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry so that their children don't have to are probably jealous if they walk past an expensive restaurant and look at the well dressed people in there eating well, but is it wrong for them to be jealous? If they up and revolt, like the French Revolution, it's not because of "intrinsic human jealously." It's the emotion people justifiably feel when they become aware that there is enough food/housing/whatever to go around, but the super rich are hoarding so much of it that there's not enough left for everyone else. You’re talking about the living standards of the poor, not wealth inequality. It’s a common mistake and an even more common dodge. If the top 1% get an extra billion, that doesn’t mean the chicken magically disappeared off the table of a poor person. Good joke though transitioning to justifiable human jealousy in a question that didn’t dismiss it as a consideration, but laid it aside temporarily to see if other reasons existed. Poverty is defined by anyone who should be listened to on the subject (which, by the way, includes Adam Smith) as a relative phenomenon. When we say 'the amount of poverty in the United State is X%', that's because we are looking at X% of people being relatively poorer than the rest of their communities. They might still have chicken on the table, but they will be excluded economically and socially from various things and as such are defined as being in poverty. Good thing we were talking wealth inequality, not poverty, and poor people not getting enough food to eat, not their economic and social exclusion. Increasing wealth inequality leads to increasing poverty. I mean yes poor people may have enough to eat (though both hunger and homelessness seem to be on the rise in the USA, and certainly are in the U.K.), but when people discuss the problems associated with inequality is very rarely in relation to the bread line. If poverty is relative, then the distribution of wealth within a society affects how many people are in poverty. I would hope that is obvious. Rich people are pretty skilled at increasing their money. You could have the best poverty situation on the planet, and inequality will still mean that rich guy investing his money cranks up inequality no matter what the fuck happens to the poorest of the poor. That's a shitty metric. Well, unfortunately it's the metric that the whole world uses - as advocated by Adam Smith, and then later Galbraith, Townsend and a number of other sociologists. It is the accepted way of defining poverty and is the reason why income redistribution through whatever method is the best way of combating poverty (alongside education and healthcare). If you accept poverty as a bad thing, and poverty as relative, then it is hard not to avoid at this conclusion. Of course you could choose not to accept poverty as relative, but many of the bad things that are thought to result from poverty are thought to result from this relative definition of it, and you would essentially be discarding these negative effects as not worth caring about. Nah, it’s been brought up heavily in the politics of envy starting in the latter half of the 20th century. Poverty can be a bad thing, but there will always be a lower 20% of incomes (no eliminating poverty if that was the definition) and any free society is bound to produce unequal outcomes (if different patterns of behavior failed to achieve different results, why not take away the freedom). Your appeal to authority is not accepted. I want to know if there’s jobs, social services, food on the table, and housing and none of those is encapsulated in income inequality but all of those are very important to poverty.
Are you and xDaunt sincerely arguing that the state only has a responsibility to keep citizens above the absolute poverty line, and nothing more? If so, both your attitudes are both so Victorian I wouldn't be surprised if they were formed from a malicious cloud of opium.
|
On December 01 2017 01:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:37 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:On December 01 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 23:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2017 23:26 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:
Also, I am really fucking amused, in a cynical way, that Danglars and xDaunt are brushing off the sort of civil unrest that results from wealth inequality as "issues derived from jealousy." I mean, sure, poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry so that their children don't have to are probably jealous if they walk past an expensive restaurant and look at the well dressed people in there eating well, but is it wrong for them to be jealous? If they up and revolt, like the French Revolution, it's not because of "intrinsic human jealously." It's the emotion people justifiably feel when they become aware that there is enough food/housing/whatever to go around, but the super rich are hoarding so much of it that there's not enough left for everyone else. You’re talking about the living standards of the poor, not wealth inequality. It’s a common mistake and an even more common dodge. If the top 1% get an extra billion, that doesn’t mean the chicken magically disappeared off the table of a poor person. Good joke though transitioning to justifiable human jealousy in a question that didn’t dismiss it as a consideration, but laid it aside temporarily to see if other reasons existed. Money is finite. A billion given to the 1% is a billion that could be given to the lowest 10% instead. Hold on a minute, buster. We're talking about going from one sentence about wealth inequality and the very next sentence is poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry. The inequality didn't make them hungry. That's like saying the ferrari parked next to you made your used honda civic get towed away. Same answer, money is finite. The CEO paying himself another 100 million in bullshit bonuses is a 100 million not going to his workers in increased wages. Top level pay has hugely outscaled lower levels, which is why we have the high levels of inequality in the first place. Nonsense, and you've lost the plot. The CEO convincing his board that he needs a bigger bonus did not make the poor kid in the ghetto miss a meal. Rising inequality doesn't vanish the dinner, it just doesn't. Original post skipped from inequality straight to hungry poor and it's always been bullshit. Hell, the rich person not working to make the extra billion in capital does more harm, but wealth inequality gives him the thumbs up. Except if the CEO instead convinced his board to increase worker wage the dad of that kid in the ghetto could afford another box a cereals. Money is finite.
Nope. In that example, the CEO stole the dinner. The poor ended up being worse off.
Gorsameth, I do like laws against theft and a police force to enforce those laws.
|
On December 01 2017 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax. This is why I am on board with an estate tax. Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it. Obviously the rich, by definition, are the ones who have the resources that can fund public works projects. But you still haven't really gotten to the key issue of why wealth or income inequality is intrinsically bad. I answered this question already: On November 30 2017 14:40 Mohdoo wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Productivity goes down and reliance on government assistance goes up. It's just a matter of if the government or the rich foot the bill. But it goes beyond who covers the bill because once people enter into poverty, they also become less healthy, happy and motivated. This leads to higher medical costs overall, which disproportionately negatively impacts people in poverty. But there are many costs beyond medical costs. When people are able to stay above a minimum level, this self fueling, negative net drain to society is prevented. It makes humans significantly less overall efficient and valuable when they are allowed to dip too low. It's like getting your oil changed. Paying to keep your oil changed prevents the engine from needing to be replaced. Similarly, keeping people above the poverty line prevents poverty-induced effects that make poverty worse. Band-Aids are cheaper than treating and infection. Etc. To be clear, there are no problems simply with people being too rich. The issue is that too many people are too poor. People engines who don't have their oil changed become a net drain rather than a wealth creator. Investment in bringing people out of poverty creates wealth and prevents drain. So long as that is done, it doesn't matter if others are even more insanely rich. The issue is that a lot of people really need to be getting more help. You're framing the issue incorrectly by pretending the only issue is someone having a ton of money. That is only an issue because so many people need more support. If these people were afloat and doing well, no one would care. When we push for things like food stamps, it is because people need help buying food. It is not to bring the rich down a notch. A couple things here. First, why are you drawing a dichotomy between the government footing the bill or the rich footing the bill? The government, by definition, doesn't generate wealth. All government resources are derived through the taxation of private assets and income streams -- ie taxation on the rich who are generating wealth. Second, you've made a very interestingly conservative argument in pointing out that the problem isn't with people being too rich, but with people being too poor. So what you're arguing against isn't wealth inequality, but rather poverty. Given his recent posting, Mohdoo is going to be about as conservative as I am in the next 5-10 years. People are poor for a variety of reasons. Some of them systematic, some of them from negligence and many other things. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter why they are poor. Poverty increases crime, medical costs, security/policing costs and tons of other stuff. Similar to the situation where people without insurance end up with enormous medical bills that the hospital end up having to eat, it's not like this cost is ever confined to the poor. With a less productive workforce, the state also suffers. Local residents also suffer from increased crime, homelessness and many other effects of poverty. I have a pretty extreme disdain for a lot poor people. Mainly because I come from an extremely poor upbringing and ask myself why others can't do what I did. But my experience growing up has shown me that asking poor people to do better is simply retarded. It won't happen. In the meantime, we've got all these poorly performing humans who are costing us a lot of money. But it doesn't matter, because the effect of their existence is still the same. If they are cared for, they cost me less money than if they are uncared for. The effects of their poverty greatly outweigh the costs of keeping them afloat. Food stamps and various other social programs have been studied to death and shown to be a positive financial investment. It doesn't matter if I think of poor people as shitty. Their impact will never be confined to themselves. We all suffer because of poverty and we can save ourselves money by helping them stay afloat. The difference between our philosophies is that I don't care about ethics or fairness when it comes to inequality. I don't care that someone who made a series of stupid decisions is now eating part of my paycheck. If they did not eat that part of my paycheck, they would actually eat more of my paycheck. I am saving money by voting in favor of social programs. My impression is that you have an easy time disregarding the wealth of information available to you regarding social program investment payout because you fundamentally disagree with the ethics and fairness of good people giving their money to shitty people. I think you have a really hard time swallowing the idea of losing money to people who have done a really shit job at managing their lives. But what you aren't considering is that even if we eliminated every social program, you would still be paying a lot of money, indirectly, because of people living in poverty. The costs of poverty are INCREASED, not decreased, by eliminating social programs. This may surprise you, but I actually am in agreement with your general position here. Like you, I don't see wealth inequality as being an inherent problem so as much as a necessary feature of our system that fuels economic growth. However, recognizing that people can be inherently shitty (ie jealous), some degree of wealth redistribution must occur to politically placate the lower classes and to minimize poverty.
It's not placating. It is giving them the resources they need to grow and generate more resources. It has nothing to do with the feelings of the poor. Sure, more people being happy is a good thing, but the heart of the issue for me is that it is plain and simply inefficient and dumb to let people live in poverty. We are wasting man-power by letting people live in poverty. Already shitty people get 100x worse. You and I both suffer from poor people getting worse. As purely selfish beings, we should still be motivated to vote in favor of wealth distribution for the sake of "changing the oil" of poor people. We need to keep those engines running and not let them just sit in some redneck's front yard.
|
On December 01 2017 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax. This is why I am on board with an estate tax. Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it. Obviously the rich, by definition, are the ones who have the resources that can fund public works projects. But you still haven't really gotten to the key issue of why wealth or income inequality is intrinsically bad. I answered this question already: On November 30 2017 14:40 Mohdoo wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Productivity goes down and reliance on government assistance goes up. It's just a matter of if the government or the rich foot the bill. But it goes beyond who covers the bill because once people enter into poverty, they also become less healthy, happy and motivated. This leads to higher medical costs overall, which disproportionately negatively impacts people in poverty. But there are many costs beyond medical costs. When people are able to stay above a minimum level, this self fueling, negative net drain to society is prevented. It makes humans significantly less overall efficient and valuable when they are allowed to dip too low. It's like getting your oil changed. Paying to keep your oil changed prevents the engine from needing to be replaced. Similarly, keeping people above the poverty line prevents poverty-induced effects that make poverty worse. Band-Aids are cheaper than treating and infection. Etc. To be clear, there are no problems simply with people being too rich. The issue is that too many people are too poor. People engines who don't have their oil changed become a net drain rather than a wealth creator. Investment in bringing people out of poverty creates wealth and prevents drain. So long as that is done, it doesn't matter if others are even more insanely rich. The issue is that a lot of people really need to be getting more help. You're framing the issue incorrectly by pretending the only issue is someone having a ton of money. That is only an issue because so many people need more support. If these people were afloat and doing well, no one would care. When we push for things like food stamps, it is because people need help buying food. It is not to bring the rich down a notch. A couple things here. First, why are you drawing a dichotomy between the government footing the bill or the rich footing the bill? The government, by definition, doesn't generate wealth. All government resources are derived through the taxation of private assets and income streams -- ie taxation on the rich who are generating wealth. Second, you've made a very interestingly conservative argument in pointing out that the problem isn't with people being too rich, but with people being too poor. So what you're arguing against isn't wealth inequality, but rather poverty. Given his recent posting, Mohdoo is going to be about as conservative as I am in the next 5-10 years. People are poor for a variety of reasons. Some of them systematic, some of them from negligence and many other things. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter why they are poor. Poverty increases crime, medical costs, security/policing costs and tons of other stuff. Similar to the situation where people without insurance end up with enormous medical bills that the hospital end up having to eat, it's not like this cost is ever confined to the poor. With a less productive workforce, the state also suffers. Local residents also suffer from increased crime, homelessness and many other effects of poverty. I have a pretty extreme disdain for a lot poor people. Mainly because I come from an extremely poor upbringing and ask myself why others can't do what I did. But my experience growing up has shown me that asking poor people to do better is simply retarded. It won't happen. In the meantime, we've got all these poorly performing humans who are costing us a lot of money. But it doesn't matter, because the effect of their existence is still the same. If they are cared for, they cost me less money than if they are uncared for. The effects of their poverty greatly outweigh the costs of keeping them afloat. Food stamps and various other social programs have been studied to death and shown to be a positive financial investment. It doesn't matter if I think of poor people as shitty. Their impact will never be confined to themselves. We all suffer because of poverty and we can save ourselves money by helping them stay afloat. The difference between our philosophies is that I don't care about ethics or fairness when it comes to inequality. I don't care that someone who made a series of stupid decisions is now eating part of my paycheck. If they did not eat that part of my paycheck, they would actually eat more of my paycheck. I am saving money by voting in favor of social programs. My impression is that you have an easy time disregarding the wealth of information available to you regarding social program investment payout because you fundamentally disagree with the ethics and fairness of good people giving their money to shitty people. I think you have a really hard time swallowing the idea of losing money to people who have done a really shit job at managing their lives. But what you aren't considering is that even if we eliminated every social program, you would still be paying a lot of money, indirectly, because of people living in poverty. The costs of poverty are INCREASED, not decreased, by eliminating social programs. This may surprise you, but I actually am in agreement with your general position here. Like you, I don't see wealth inequality as being an inherent problem so as much as a necessary feature of our system that fuels economic growth. However, recognizing that people can be inherently shitty (ie jealous), some degree of wealth redistribution must occur to politically placate the lower classes and to minimize poverty.
There is an enormous amount of evidence that shows that as inequality increases, so does poor public health, social immobility, mental illness, crime and all the pathologies related with that.
|
On December 01 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 01 2017 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax. This is why I am on board with an estate tax. Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it. Obviously the rich, by definition, are the ones who have the resources that can fund public works projects. But you still haven't really gotten to the key issue of why wealth or income inequality is intrinsically bad. I answered this question already: On November 30 2017 14:40 Mohdoo wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Productivity goes down and reliance on government assistance goes up. It's just a matter of if the government or the rich foot the bill. But it goes beyond who covers the bill because once people enter into poverty, they also become less healthy, happy and motivated. This leads to higher medical costs overall, which disproportionately negatively impacts people in poverty. But there are many costs beyond medical costs. When people are able to stay above a minimum level, this self fueling, negative net drain to society is prevented. It makes humans significantly less overall efficient and valuable when they are allowed to dip too low. It's like getting your oil changed. Paying to keep your oil changed prevents the engine from needing to be replaced. Similarly, keeping people above the poverty line prevents poverty-induced effects that make poverty worse. Band-Aids are cheaper than treating and infection. Etc. To be clear, there are no problems simply with people being too rich. The issue is that too many people are too poor. People engines who don't have their oil changed become a net drain rather than a wealth creator. Investment in bringing people out of poverty creates wealth and prevents drain. So long as that is done, it doesn't matter if others are even more insanely rich. The issue is that a lot of people really need to be getting more help. You're framing the issue incorrectly by pretending the only issue is someone having a ton of money. That is only an issue because so many people need more support. If these people were afloat and doing well, no one would care. When we push for things like food stamps, it is because people need help buying food. It is not to bring the rich down a notch. A couple things here. First, why are you drawing a dichotomy between the government footing the bill or the rich footing the bill? The government, by definition, doesn't generate wealth. All government resources are derived through the taxation of private assets and income streams -- ie taxation on the rich who are generating wealth. Second, you've made a very interestingly conservative argument in pointing out that the problem isn't with people being too rich, but with people being too poor. So what you're arguing against isn't wealth inequality, but rather poverty. Given his recent posting, Mohdoo is going to be about as conservative as I am in the next 5-10 years. Poverty and wealth inequality are inextricably linked though. Arguing against poverty is only viable when there is huge wealth inequality, otherwise you are just arguing against low standards of living. No, poverty and wealth inequality are not inextricably linked. There are plenty of countries around the world where there is not a lot of wealth inequality (because there is no wealth) but there is plenty of poverty. Contrast that with the US where there is minimal "poverty" (our poor have cellphones and flatscreen tvs) but a helluva lot of wealth inequality. If you are truly concerned about wealth inequality, then by definition, you are concerned with both the upper and lower limits of the wealth disparity. If you are only concerned with the lower limit, then what you are arguing against is poverty, and not wealth inequality.
There is overwhelming wvidence that the lower inequalities are, the better. Scandinavian countries have the lowest inequalities in the world, and are all more or less in the top 5 in hapiness, democracy, life expectancy, crime, press freedom, etc etc etc.
I don’t understand: why do you want a few people to be obscenely, filthy rich? What does anyone gain from it? What good does it make? Your country is not one bit better because you have more billionaires than any other natiom. It is much worse because the state can’t offer a decent education to poor kids or a healthcare to people who can’t afford it. And you have to chose between both.
Wealth is a finite stuff. It looks like you guys just want another guilded age. If you are a billionaire and evil, I understand. But otherwise, i just don’t get it.
|
On December 01 2017 02:25 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 02:12 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 01:40 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 01:32 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 01:19 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 23:26 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:
Also, I am really fucking amused, in a cynical way, that Danglars and xDaunt are brushing off the sort of civil unrest that results from wealth inequality as "issues derived from jealousy." I mean, sure, poor people looking at their insufficient meals and going hungry so that their children don't have to are probably jealous if they walk past an expensive restaurant and look at the well dressed people in there eating well, but is it wrong for them to be jealous? If they up and revolt, like the French Revolution, it's not because of "intrinsic human jealously." It's the emotion people justifiably feel when they become aware that there is enough food/housing/whatever to go around, but the super rich are hoarding so much of it that there's not enough left for everyone else. You’re talking about the living standards of the poor, not wealth inequality. It’s a common mistake and an even more common dodge. If the top 1% get an extra billion, that doesn’t mean the chicken magically disappeared off the table of a poor person. Good joke though transitioning to justifiable human jealousy in a question that didn’t dismiss it as a consideration, but laid it aside temporarily to see if other reasons existed. Poverty is defined by anyone who should be listened to on the subject (which, by the way, includes Adam Smith) as a relative phenomenon. When we say 'the amount of poverty in the United State is X%', that's because we are looking at X% of people being relatively poorer than the rest of their communities. They might still have chicken on the table, but they will be excluded economically and socially from various things and as such are defined as being in poverty. Good thing we were talking wealth inequality, not poverty, and poor people not getting enough food to eat, not their economic and social exclusion. Increasing wealth inequality leads to increasing poverty. I mean yes poor people may have enough to eat (though both hunger and homelessness seem to be on the rise in the USA, and certainly are in the U.K.), but when people discuss the problems associated with inequality is very rarely in relation to the bread line. If poverty is relative, then the distribution of wealth within a society affects how many people are in poverty. I would hope that is obvious. Rich people are pretty skilled at increasing their money. You could have the best poverty situation on the planet, and inequality will still mean that rich guy investing his money cranks up inequality no matter what the fuck happens to the poorest of the poor. That's a shitty metric. Well, unfortunately it's the metric that the whole world uses - as advocated by Adam Smith, and then later Galbraith, Townsend and a number of other sociologists. It is the accepted way of defining poverty and is the reason why income redistribution through whatever method is the best way of combating poverty (alongside education and healthcare). If you accept poverty as a bad thing, and poverty as relative, then it is hard not to avoid at this conclusion. Of course you could choose not to accept poverty as relative, but many of the bad things that are thought to result from poverty are thought to result from this relative definition of it, and you would essentially be discarding these negative effects as not worth caring about. Nah, it’s been brought up heavily in the politics of envy starting in the latter half of the 20th century. Poverty can be a bad thing, but there will always be a lower 20% of incomes (no eliminating poverty if that was the definition) and any free society is bound to produce unequal outcomes (if different patterns of behavior failed to achieve different results, why not take away the freedom). Your appeal to authority is not accepted. I want to know if there’s jobs, social services, food on the table, and housing and none of those is encapsulated in income inequality but all of those are very important to poverty. Are you and xDaunt sincerely arguing that the state only has a responsibility to keep citizens above the absolute poverty line, and nothing more? If so, both your attitudes are both so Victorian I wouldn't be surprised if they were formed from a malicious cloud of opium.
We might get to responsibilities of the state in a broader context if the thread starts valuing those discussions. For now, I’ll take an admission that income inequality is very detached from the living conditions of the poor, and the latter needs to be the real focus in a sane society. I couldn’t care less if you do the “classify and reject” sneaky argument from incredulity. Victorian for you, Socialism for your twin on the other side.
And speaking of labeling things you would prefer not to discuss, xDaunt speaks for himself so I can’t answer for him. Today, you can trip over a rock and be accused of racism, so anything I say is from my own perspective and not to be taken as speaking for this forums duo of regular conservatives. You can address yourself to him if you’re curious.
|
On December 01 2017 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 01:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 01 2017 01:51 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? We're all idealizing the meritocracy, right? From that perspective, the primary problem with wealth inequality is that it is intergenerational. As the capital of your parents can certainly be observed to directly influence your own capital, wealth inequality is in conflict with the idea of a meritocracy, as being born by wealthy parents is no accomplishment. I've posted before how, principally (thus ignoring how politically unfeasible it is and some predictable negative consequences), I could be on board with vastly lowered income taxes and 100% estate tax. This is why I am on board with an estate tax. Like, I'm not generally a fan of 'take money from the rich and give to the poor', but I'm a huge fan of 'take money from the rich and spend it on infrastructure, especially public education, to give the poor a more equal footing'. Taxation as a means of redistribution is not the ideal - but the gross difference in value of skillsets (capitalism does not give an accurate portrayal of how much one mans labor is worth to society nor how difficult it is) and the difference in ability to cultivate skillsets that make you rich depending on your upbringing necessitates it. Obviously the rich, by definition, are the ones who have the resources that can fund public works projects. But you still haven't really gotten to the key issue of why wealth or income inequality is intrinsically bad. I answered this question already: On November 30 2017 14:40 Mohdoo wrote:On November 30 2017 14:22 xDaunt wrote:
Let’s just put the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy aside for a moment and ask the following: why is wealth inequality, in and of itself, a bad thing? Productivity goes down and reliance on government assistance goes up. It's just a matter of if the government or the rich foot the bill. But it goes beyond who covers the bill because once people enter into poverty, they also become less healthy, happy and motivated. This leads to higher medical costs overall, which disproportionately negatively impacts people in poverty. But there are many costs beyond medical costs. When people are able to stay above a minimum level, this self fueling, negative net drain to society is prevented. It makes humans significantly less overall efficient and valuable when they are allowed to dip too low. It's like getting your oil changed. Paying to keep your oil changed prevents the engine from needing to be replaced. Similarly, keeping people above the poverty line prevents poverty-induced effects that make poverty worse. Band-Aids are cheaper than treating and infection. Etc. To be clear, there are no problems simply with people being too rich. The issue is that too many people are too poor. People engines who don't have their oil changed become a net drain rather than a wealth creator. Investment in bringing people out of poverty creates wealth and prevents drain. So long as that is done, it doesn't matter if others are even more insanely rich. The issue is that a lot of people really need to be getting more help. You're framing the issue incorrectly by pretending the only issue is someone having a ton of money. That is only an issue because so many people need more support. If these people were afloat and doing well, no one would care. When we push for things like food stamps, it is because people need help buying food. It is not to bring the rich down a notch. A couple things here. First, why are you drawing a dichotomy between the government footing the bill or the rich footing the bill? The government, by definition, doesn't generate wealth. All government resources are derived through the taxation of private assets and income streams -- ie taxation on the rich who are generating wealth. Second, you've made a very interestingly conservative argument in pointing out that the problem isn't with people being too rich, but with people being too poor. So what you're arguing against isn't wealth inequality, but rather poverty. Given his recent posting, Mohdoo is going to be about as conservative as I am in the next 5-10 years. Poverty and wealth inequality are inextricably linked though. Arguing against poverty is only viable when there is huge wealth inequality, otherwise you are just arguing against low standards of living. No, poverty and wealth inequality are not inextricably linked. There are plenty of countries around the world where there is not a lot of wealth inequality (because there is no wealth) but there is plenty of poverty. Contrast that with the US where there is minimal "poverty" (our poor have cellphones and flatscreen tvs) but a helluva lot of wealth inequality. If you are truly concerned about wealth inequality, then by definition, you are concerned with both the upper and lower limits of the wealth disparity. If you are only concerned with the lower limit, then what you are arguing against is poverty, and not wealth inequality. There is overwhelming wvidence that the lower inequalities are, the better. Scandinavian countries have the lowest inequalities in the world, and are all more or less in the top 5 in hapiness, democracy, life expectancy, crime, press freedom, etc etc etc. I don’t understand: why do you want a few people to be obscenely, filthy rich? What does anyone gain from it? What good does it make? Your country is not one bit better because you have more billionaires than any other natiom. It is much worse because the state can’t offer a decent education to poor kids or a healthcare to people who can’t afford it. And you have to chose between both. Wealth is a finite stuff. It looks like you guys just want another guilded age. If you are a billionaire and evil, I understand. But otherwise, i just don’t get it.
Its not obscene wealth that people want. Its poor people at the other end of the scale. What use is it being well off if you don't have poor strugglers to compare yourself to? Life seems so much better in comparison to families with starving kids.
|
From my experience, what the super wealthy want is the feeling of power and social status. For people to bow and be servile. What is bizarre is why redistribution of wealth is negaative to xDaunt and Danglars to the point where they want to argue that those living in poverty are not living in poverty and society should not help provide avenues of escape from poverty . Why don't they beleive in equality of education for instance? It appears to be a common theme in USA. It's just wierd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
