|
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 01:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2017 14:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 14:31 GreenHorizons 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? Perhaps in a world where there wasn't slavery and people starving with little/no access to clean drinking water you might have a point. But pretending that starving people in a world with billionaires isn't directly related to wealth inequality I have little faith there's a reasonable discussion to be had. The starving people happen to predominantly live in shitty countries with shitty social systems that are based on shitty values. Remember what I said earlier about nationalism being a good thing? It’s our defense from becoming like those shitty countries and it’s the method of eliminating their shitty values. Every time one of these poor and ass backwards countries starts to implement classical liberal, capitalist systems, they begin to accumulate wealth and the standard of living for the citizens improves. Take a look at Chile for example. We also have plenty of examples of countries that were doing well with Western systems, subsequently dismantled those systems, and utterly impoverished their people — like Zimbabwe. Do people really believe that these things are purely coincidental? Why are you equating Nationalism with liberal capitalism? That sounds like a really weird connection to make to me. And how does nationalism stop you from becoming a 3e world country? Because I'm not equating liberal capitalism with nationalism. Like I have previously discussed, nationalism is the outward expression of a nation's (ie a people's) values. My point is that nationalism is important and even necessary in a multicultural world so that a nation can preserve itself. If a nation won't defend and promote its core values, no one else will, and the nation will not survive.
So your post I quoted where you draw parallels between nationalism and 3e world countries rising up (or failing) through capitalism was horseshit.
Good to clear that up.
|
On December 01 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 30 2017 16:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That said, the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy also need to be factored in politically. (goal of politics is to create a society that benefits its people as well as it possibly can, right?) Social trust and cohesion are important values. These are hurt by excessive imbalance in wealth. Nobody minds the doctor making twice as much as the store clerk, but when people get more than 100 times as much as others, especially when others struggle with having enough money to live dignified lives, that is (correctly, imo) perceived as a wasteful allocation of money because the added societal utility from 3x to 103x normal income or wealth is vastly inferior to the societal utility of bringing 500 people from 0.8x to 1x. It also fosters the creation of parallel societies, and being 'poor' hurts people's ability to be positive societal influences. If everyone is above the baseline, it's not that big of a deal that some people are way above the baseline, but there is a baseline of income/wealth required to be the best version of yourself that you can be, and as many people find themselves below that baseline, correcting this is good.
This isn't really that far from where I am on the issue. People are intrinsically shitty and jealous, which means that wealth inequality is a political issue that must be dealt with until we get better at cranking out virtuous citizens. In other words, wealth inequality, in and of itself, is not a problem. The nature of people is.
|
On December 01 2017 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2017 14:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 14:31 GreenHorizons 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? Perhaps in a world where there wasn't slavery and people starving with little/no access to clean drinking water you might have a point. But pretending that starving people in a world with billionaires isn't directly related to wealth inequality I have little faith there's a reasonable discussion to be had. The starving people happen to predominantly live in shitty countries with shitty social systems that are based on shitty values. Remember what I said earlier about nationalism being a good thing? It’s our defense from becoming like those shitty countries and it’s the method of eliminating their shitty values. Every time one of these poor and ass backwards countries starts to implement classical liberal, capitalist systems, they begin to accumulate wealth and the standard of living for the citizens improves. Take a look at Chile for example. We also have plenty of examples of countries that were doing well with Western systems, subsequently dismantled those systems, and utterly impoverished their people — like Zimbabwe. Do people really believe that these things are purely coincidental? Why are you equating Nationalism with liberal capitalism? That sounds like a really weird connection to make to me. And how does nationalism stop you from becoming a 3e world country? Because I'm not equating liberal capitalism with nationalism. Like I have previously discussed, nationalism is the outward expression of a nation's (ie a people's) values. My point is that nationalism is important and even necessary in a multicultural world so that a nation can preserve itself. If a nation won't defend and promote its core values, no one else will, and the nation will not survive. So your post I quoted where you draw parallels between nationalism and 3e world countries rising up (or failing) through capitalism was horseshit. Good to clear that up.
This is the kind of analysis that I'd expect from a third grader. You can do better than this.
|
On December 01 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 01 2017 01:11 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2017 14:47 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 14:31 GreenHorizons 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? Perhaps in a world where there wasn't slavery and people starving with little/no access to clean drinking water you might have a point. But pretending that starving people in a world with billionaires isn't directly related to wealth inequality I have little faith there's a reasonable discussion to be had. The starving people happen to predominantly live in shitty countries with shitty social systems that are based on shitty values. Remember what I said earlier about nationalism being a good thing? It’s our defense from becoming like those shitty countries and it’s the method of eliminating their shitty values. Every time one of these poor and ass backwards countries starts to implement classical liberal, capitalist systems, they begin to accumulate wealth and the standard of living for the citizens improves. Take a look at Chile for example. We also have plenty of examples of countries that were doing well with Western systems, subsequently dismantled those systems, and utterly impoverished their people — like Zimbabwe. Do people really believe that these things are purely coincidental? Why are you equating Nationalism with liberal capitalism? That sounds like a really weird connection to make to me. And how does nationalism stop you from becoming a 3e world country? Because I'm not equating liberal capitalism with nationalism. Like I have previously discussed, nationalism is the outward expression of a nation's (ie a people's) values. My point is that nationalism is important and even necessary in a multicultural world so that a nation can preserve itself. If a nation won't defend and promote its core values, no one else will, and the nation will not survive. How does that lead to economic nationalism?
How does what lead to economic nationalism? And why are you bringing up economic nationalism?
|
On December 01 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 01 2017 01:19 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +That said, the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy also need to be factored in politically. (goal of politics is to create a society that benefits its people as well as it possibly can, right?) Social trust and cohesion are important values. These are hurt by excessive imbalance in wealth. Nobody minds the doctor making twice as much as the store clerk, but when people get more than 100 times as much as others, especially when others struggle with having enough money to live dignified lives, that is (correctly, imo) perceived as a wasteful allocation of money because the added societal utility from 3x to 103x normal income or wealth is vastly inferior to the societal utility of bringing 500 people from 0.8x to 1x. It also fosters the creation of parallel societies, and being 'poor' hurts people's ability to be positive societal influences. If everyone is above the baseline, it's not that big of a deal that some people are way above the baseline, but there is a baseline of income/wealth required to be the best version of yourself that you can be, and as many people find themselves below that baseline, correcting this is good. This isn't really that far from where I am on the issue. People are intrinsically shitty and jealous, which means that wealth inequality is a political issue that must be dealt with until we get better at cranking out virtuous citizens. In other words, wealth inequality, in and of itself, is not a problem. The nature of people is.
As far as I understand, you build systems around people. You don't build systems with the hopes that people don't fuck it up. Wealth inequality is intrinsically bad because a country where everyone has the resources they need to do shit will outproduce a country where most people don't have the resources to get an education or advance themselves.
|
On December 01 2017 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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:Show nested quote +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.
|
I mean theres always going to be a measure of inequality and thats not a bad thing in of itself. The issue comes when the lowest on the ladder don't get what they need to get by. Society is measured by how well off the worst are and how much better then rest are in preposition.
As I always say you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you can't afford a pair of boots and a good set of straps.
|
On December 01 2017 01:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
United States41991 Posts
On December 01 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Wait, what!? It absolutely did. That's like the fundamental point of capitalism. It's how it works. Do you not actually understand that? Holy shit!
Okay, so capitalism 101.
There is a finite amount of human labour that can be performed, regardless of the amount of money in circulation. The money in circulation effectively represents that labour. Market participants bid on the areas they think the labour should be allocated to by offering to exchange money for labour in the market. Bidding for the labour to be performed in one area is directly bidding against a rival who thinks it should be performed in another. If I buy a Toyota then I am directing the market to expend more human labour in the production of Toyotas, and therefore less in the production of Fords.
If a rich person bids on human labour for the construction of a folly and a poor person bids on human labour for food production then the rich person wins and the human labour is redirected from food production to the construction of a folly. This has happened countless times throughout history. It's basically how the Irish potato famine happened. Landowners were producing cash crops that their starving tenants couldn't afford.
If the US mint were to print an additional billion dollars and give them to me then there would be absolutely no change in the total human labour available. However, I would be able to outbid an awful lot of other market participants and in doing so redirect labour from what those other people believed it should be spent on to what I thought it should be spent on. And if I didn't see the need to buy a billion dollars worth of food, but did think it'd be neat to have my own pyramid, then that's going to be reflected in what is produced.
This is pretty elemental stuff, if you want to support capitalism then you ought to be aware of how capitalism works. The competing market participants are in a zero sum game, when one wins a bid for labour allocation the others all lose. That's how it works.
|
It is also worth mentioning that as inequality increases, poverty can also go down, because it is calculated from the median income of a household. This is another reason why, when we talk about the problems resulting from poverty, we are probably better off talking about the problems that arise from inequality.
|
On December 01 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 01 2017 01:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +That said, the obvious considerations of intrinsic human jealousy also need to be factored in politically. (goal of politics is to create a society that benefits its people as well as it possibly can, right?) Social trust and cohesion are important values. These are hurt by excessive imbalance in wealth. Nobody minds the doctor making twice as much as the store clerk, but when people get more than 100 times as much as others, especially when others struggle with having enough money to live dignified lives, that is (correctly, imo) perceived as a wasteful allocation of money because the added societal utility from 3x to 103x normal income or wealth is vastly inferior to the societal utility of bringing 500 people from 0.8x to 1x. It also fosters the creation of parallel societies, and being 'poor' hurts people's ability to be positive societal influences. If everyone is above the baseline, it's not that big of a deal that some people are way above the baseline, but there is a baseline of income/wealth required to be the best version of yourself that you can be, and as many people find themselves below that baseline, correcting this is good. This isn't really that far from where I am on the issue. People are intrinsically shitty and jealous, which means that wealth inequality is a political issue that must be dealt with until we get better at cranking out virtuous citizens. In other words, wealth inequality, in and of itself, is not a problem. The nature of people is.
yeah, right after Jared Kushner creates peace in the middle east.
|
On December 01 2017 01:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
Firstly, through investment in infrastructure, education, healthcare etc the government can enable a larger proportion of private citizens to generate wealth, and subsequently taxation revenue. It is not solely on the shoulders of the rich to do so.
Secondly, what do you think poverty is? If wealth inequality goes up because (for example) there is mass unemployment due to an economic recession, the amount of poverty can go down. Not because people are any better off, but because the poverty line has moved down due to the mass of people getting poorer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
