3 ms·

There's no real reason a 'staggeringly unequal benefits distribution' should lead to an economic crisis, unless you believe in proletarian revolution or somethi

There's no real reason a 'staggeringly unequal benefits distribution' should lead to an economic crisis, unless you believe in proletarian revolution or something.

deciplex 11y ago
Let's say all the wealth in the world, minus a few percent, belonged to 400 people. Can you think of some ways that would wreak havoc on the economy, even without triggering a "proletarian revolution?"
- cynicalkane 11y ago
  No, because an economic crisis is a fall in economic output. The point is that "undesirable wealth distribution" is not what an economic crisis is. If 400 people controlled everything, the world wouldn't be a great place to live, but the economy would probably be more stable.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    I don't recall high Gini coefficients being associated with economic stability. The massive reduction in marginal utility from most people focusing only on immediate consumption, coupled with the massive oligopolism and centralization leading to price distortions -- those alone don't imply economic stability to me. An extreme oligopoly would likely imply civil unrest, so all else would suffer.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    Can you think of some ways that an economy where virtually all the demand for goods theoretically possible is coming from 400 people, would see a substantial drop in economic output? Assume everyone's participation in the economy aside from that 400 is limited to getting enough shelter that they don't die of exposure and enough food that they don't starve to death.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> There's no real reason a 'staggeringly unequal benefits distribution' should lead to an economic crisis, unless you believe in proletarian revolution or something. There's plenty of reason to believe in proletarian revolution [0] as a thing that happens, whether or not one believes in it as a thing which is an ideologically desirable response to certain conditions. [0] At least, revolution in which the lower classes are actively involved and where their dissatisfaction is a key lever used by the revolutionary leadership, even if the leadership itself is often from disaffected factions of the elites, either in government, military, academia, or private wealth.

There's no real reason a 'staggeringly unequal benefits distribution' should lead to an economic crisis, unless you believe in proletarian revolution or something.

deciplex 11y ago

Let's say all the wealth in the world, minus a few percent, belonged to 400 people. Can you think of some ways that would wreak havoc on the economy, even without triggering a "proletarian revolution?"

cynicalkane 11y ago
No, because an economic crisis is a fall in economic output. The point is that "undesirable wealth distribution" is not what an economic crisis is. If 400 people controlled everything, the world wouldn't be a great place to live, but the economy would probably be more stable.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I don't recall high Gini coefficients being associated with economic stability. The massive reduction in marginal utility from most people focusing only on immediate consumption, coupled with the massive oligopolism and centralization leading to price distortions -- those alone don't imply economic stability to me. An extreme oligopoly would likely imply civil unrest, so all else would suffer.
- deciplex 11y ago
  Can you think of some ways that an economy where virtually all the demand for goods theoretically possible is coming from 400 people, would see a substantial drop in economic output? Assume everyone's participation in the economy aside from that 400 is limited to getting enough shelter that they don't die of exposure and enough food that they don't starve to death.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> There's no real reason a 'staggeringly unequal benefits distribution' should lead to an economic crisis, unless you believe in proletarian revolution or something. There's plenty of reason to believe in proletarian revolution [0] as a thing that happens, whether or not one believes in it as a thing which is an ideologically desirable response to certain conditions. [0] At least, revolution in which the lower classes are actively involved and where their dissatisfaction is a key lever used by the revolutionary leadership, even if the leadership itself is often from disaffected factions of the elites, either in government, military, academia, or private wealth.