3 ms·

Very interesting, particularly the idea that the rise in inequality is a ntural consequence of fairness. I wonder, then, if those opposing the rise in inequali

• wutbrodo 11y ago
  > the rise in inequality is a ntural [sic] consequence of fairness. I wonder, then, if those opposing the rise in inequality aren't like King Canute ordering the tide to recede. The subset of people complaining about inequality that I actually take seriously[1] are concerned with its effects (for example, on the health of the economy[2]), not what the cause of the rise was relative to the previous era. Another factor in the (reasonable) complaints has to do with the perception that income inequality is driven by (and driving) inequality of _opportunity_. Basically, the rising inequality is seen as an unfortunate side effect of a positive thing (the aforementioned "fairness"), and the good (IMO) proposed solutions involve increasing said fairness, instead of just rolling back to what we had earlier (warts and all). [1] i.e., excluding the people who dislike it without any understanding of what its potential causes or implications might be (IME these people exist for every single possible POV). Included in this are people who think that we can magically re-create the economic environment of the 50s (wherein half the world had blown itself to pieces and the other half was emerging from under the heel of colonialism or being smushed by the heel of Communism). [2] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-imf-inequality-idUKBREA1P1PH20140226 http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-imf-inequality-idUKBREA1P1P...