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 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.
Income inequality is not detached from the living standards of the poor. A comprehensive, European style social state in which 44-45% of GDP is spent on public services is the best way to improve the living standards of the poor. That is established in every single country with a social state this comprehensive. Given that fact, this absolutely is a discussion about the responsibilities of the state - does it have a responsibility to maintain such a large social state, and if so - how?
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.
This is an absurd statement. Just look at all of the technological development that has occurred in the US that has both enriched the creators and improved the quality of life of the consuming public. Wealth and income inequality -- and more specifically, the possibility thereof -- drives innovation.
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.
could be, it is indeed a common tactic. otoh, an 88-year old in the hospital isn't exactly surprising. I'd expect some 88-year olds to be more susceptible to stress making things bad enough for a hospital stay (especially considering how cushy government medical plans usually are, not like he's paying out of pocket for it).
xDaunt, you appear to be under the mistaken impression that technological development is solely a phenemenom of the US. What is the purpose of innovation and why do we view it positively? It is because we all broadly speaking believe that it raises the standard of living. Broadly speaking western Europe has higher standards of living than the USA, even if there are plenty of billionaires in Europe, though due to regulatory and language and culture differences the same economies of scale cannot be met.
On December 01 2017 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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.
This is an absurd statement. Just look at all of the technological development that has occurred in the US that has both enriched the creators and improved the quality of life of the consuming public. Wealth and income inequality -- and more specifically, the possibility thereof -- drives innovation.
There's a sensible way through all of this. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing battle of ideologies in economics. The reality doesn't play out like that either. The sensible way to go is periods of focus on a healthy overall economy followed by periods of investment in social systems to raise the quality of life for the poor. There's absolutely no reason why having both isn't possible, and in most democracies that is how it turns out. America has bypassed this, however, by demonizing communism and then associating any kind of social investment with communism.
I feel like pointing out that neither xdaunt nor danglars have typical views for their age groups in the US. (I'm assuming millenialish, like mid 30s or younger). I believe Danglars also has to deal with his vote basically not mattering (sorta same deal for GH), meaning he can support very extreme things and never have his vote change things. It is a lot easier to vote for Trump or Stein if your state is going Hillary 65-30.
There are plenty of people with those views, but most of them are much older. It is also regional of course, but only 2 states in the country had their millenials go for Trump.
Trump is now going around bragging about how he making his tax accountants mad by changing the laws.
If Trump is able to changes the tax law before the investigation into his financial holdings is concluded, does that nullify the investigation? That would explain why he wants to press it through quickly as possibly.
On December 01 2017 02:55 Nevuk wrote: I feel like pointing out that neither xdaunt nor danglars have typical views for their age groups in the US. (I'm assuming millenialish, like mid 30s or younger). I believe Danglars also has to deal with his vote basically not mattering (sorta same deal for GH), meaning he can support very extreme things and never have his vote change things. It is a lot easier to vote for Trump or Stein if your state is going Hillary 65-30.
There are plenty of people with those views, but most of them are much older. It is also regional of course, but only 2 states in the country had their millenials go for Trump.
I'm technically part of the tip of the spear of the millennial generation, but I don't really identify with them at all nor is my experience typical of millennials.
On December 01 2017 02:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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.
This is an absurd statement. Just look at all of the technological development that has occurred in the US that has both enriched the creators and improved the quality of life of the consuming public. Wealth and income inequality -- and more specifically, the possibility thereof -- drives innovation.
US has created an insane amount of wealth in the last twenty years that has got into very few hands. While the country has gotten much richer the situation has gotten worse for most people, while a few people has gotten astronomically rich. Hell that’s the reason we have that fucking clipn in the WH in the first place.
Either you live in a magic world where you can make a few people absurdly rich without it meaning that a shitload of people don’t get quite a bit richer as they would otherwise (because math) or you prefer one person getting more billions while normal golks stagnate at best. It’s arithmetic.
And no, making billionaires doesn’t magically create more $ because vodoo. That has been debunked a zillion times both in theory and practice.
On December 01 2017 02:55 Nevuk wrote: I feel like pointing out that neither xdaunt nor danglars have typical views for their age groups in the US. (I'm assuming millenialish, like mid 30s or younger). I believe Danglars also has to deal with his vote basically not mattering (sorta same deal for GH), meaning he can support very extreme things and never have his vote change things. It is a lot easier to vote for Trump or Stein if your state is going Hillary 65-30.
There are plenty of people with those views, but most of them are much older. It is also regional of course, but only 2 states in the country had their millenials go for Trump.
Stereotypes and deviations from them. If you’re young and not a liberal, you haven’t got a heart. If you’re old and not a conservative, you haven’t got a brain.
The weird thing is Trump among millenials is it usually is an all or nothing type deal (best example here would be Doodsmack). You either hate everything he does or love him to death.
I’ll give you the benefit of believing what you believe is right, if you’ll allow me the courtesy of believing what I believe is right. *Ahem* I think it’s in very bad taste to presume the extremity of views and justify “because it’s unlikely to change policies.” I might as well say Nevuk is the kind of brain-dead millennial that just goes with the flow on the far-left river. He doesn’t have enough life experience or accumulated wealth to actually have to examine what his views do to larger society. That’s basically how dumb I think it is to label somebody’s views extreme and try to psychologically examine their reasons for believing them. It doesn’t lead anywhere productive, it can break down the debate, and hurts finding middle ground.
EPT
