4 ms·

That's a fundamental premise where we disagree. Particularly in a society where most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth, inequality - for me - should

That's a fundamental premise where we disagree. Particularly in a society where most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth, inequality - for me - should be the primary target of politics.

merpnderp 11y ago
Is most wealth inherited? I thought it was fairly established that after 3 generations a personal fortune is usually lost.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  Most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth. I don't know if the fact you stated is true, maybe it is, but it's not the opposite of what I said. http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/01/30-wealth-inheritance-mobility-sawhill http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    From the linked source in the second link you provided, it states that between 35-45 of wealth is inherited. Not to be overly contentious, but that is not "most". Is your point that inherited wealth is the majority of the unfair, and socially aggravating wealth inequality that angers a large percentage of society? Because that certainly seems believable. By the way, thanks for the interesting links.
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      You're right, and not overly contentious at all: I should've said it's the biggest factor, not the major one. I had in mind values I saw somewhere for the U.S. and my country (Portugal), both around 60%.
oberstein 11y ago
Is there potential evidence you could imagine that would change your mind about that premise? I agree with GP that inequality is fine if the basic needs of everyone are met, I also go further and agree with Paul Graham that inequality is a sign of a healthy economy (http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html). I also find nothing wrong with inherited wealth because I love my heirs and want them to have an easier life than I did, I want them to have some silver lining if I pass, I'm in this for more than just myself. I thought about it for a few minutes and one piece of evidence that might make me reconsider your side is if you could show rising inequality (in an environment with an absolute basic-needs-met floor or not) leads to falling access of the basics like food, shelter, knowledge, and useful technology like penicillin. That would be a potential downside to increased inequality that I would care about -- I don't particularly care about the potential downside of increased inequality leading to increased envy since you don't treat envy by giving in to it.
- lotsofcows 11y ago
  Who gets to decide what "basic needs" are? Oh, "in a democracy"! That's ok then. But I agree with you on the whole. The serfs should just be grateful I'm not beating them.

That's a fundamental premise where we disagree. Particularly in a society where most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth, inequality - for me - should be the primary target of politics.

merpnderp 11y ago

Is most wealth inherited? I thought it was fairly established that after 3 generations a personal fortune is usually lost.

paulojreis 11y ago
Most wealth inequality is due to inherited wealth. I don't know if the fact you stated is true, maybe it is, but it's not the opposite of what I said. http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article95&lang=fr#nb2 http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2015/01/30-wealth-inheritance-mobility-sawhill http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2...
- merpnderp 11y ago
  From the linked source in the second link you provided, it states that between 35-45 of wealth is inherited. Not to be overly contentious, but that is not "most". Is your point that inherited wealth is the majority of the unfair, and socially aggravating wealth inequality that angers a large percentage of society? Because that certainly seems believable. By the way, thanks for the interesting links.
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    You're right, and not overly contentious at all: I should've said it's the biggest factor, not the major one. I had in mind values I saw somewhere for the U.S. and my country (Portugal), both around 60%.

oberstein 11y ago

Is there potential evidence you could imagine that would change your mind about that premise? I agree with GP that inequality is fine if the basic needs of everyone are met, I also go further and agree with Paul Graham that inequality is a sign of a healthy economy (http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html). I also find nothing wrong with inherited wealth because I love my heirs and want them to have an easier life than I did, I want them to have some silver lining if I pass, I'm in this for more than just myself. I thought about it for a few minutes and one piece of evidence that might make me reconsider your side is if you could show rising inequality (in an environment with an absolute basic-needs-met floor or not) leads to falling access of the basics like food, shelter, knowledge, and useful technology like penicillin. That would be a potential downside to increased inequality that I would care about -- I don't particularly care about the potential downside of increased inequality leading to increased envy since you don't treat envy by giving in to it.

lotsofcows 11y ago
Who gets to decide what "basic needs" are? Oh, "in a democracy"! That's ok then. But I agree with you on the whole. The serfs should just be grateful I'm not beating them.