3 ms·

> Bill Gates gave an excellent summary of the argument against unchecked levels of economic inequality[2]: High levels of inequality are a problem — messing up

> Bill Gates gave an excellent summary of the argument against unchecked levels of economic inequality[2]: High levels of inequality are a problem — messing up economic incentives, tilting democracies in favor of powerful interests, and undercutting the ideal that all people are created equal. This is the problem right here. The "ideal that all people are created equal." The truth is, they are not. There are differences in IQ, differences in emotional capacity, differences in physical strength, differences in programming ability, etc. Because every human has a unique set of DNA -- that will only ever occur once and never again be repeated -- they will have unique combinations of various skills and traits. People are not equal and you cannot make them so. Thus they will have different outcomes economically. It couldn't be any other way. What you can do is provide equal opportunities to those with objectively worse environments, i.e. those in poverty. Attacking this problem will be the most meaningful solution. But economic inequality is still not the yard stick to use for this. How these obvious issues get conflated through the use of the trigger term "economic inequality" is beyond me. Perhaps it stems from the self-esteem movement where we started giving trophies to every kid who could kick the ball. Do people complain about "soccer inequality" because they don't play on FC Barcelona? And should one blame Messi for such a thing, or should they find ways to sponsor youth soccer leagues instead.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> This is the problem right here. The "ideal that all people are created equal." The truth is, they are not. There are differences in IQ, differences in emotional capacity, differences in physical strength, differences in programming ability, etc. Here's what that phrase originally meant: European-style nobility is a mistake. It's not that you are better than me, not because of IQ, emotional capacity, physical strength, or anything of that nature. Instead, the idea was that you were better than me because your great-great-great-grandfather helped the king put his trousers on every morning, and got rewarded with a hereditary title, and you inherited it, and therefore you are my "better" because you have a title and I don't. And the older the title, the better it was, even though that means the less it had anything to do with you! So when the Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal", it's not talking about IQ or physical strength. It's not even talking about different economic outcomes. It's talking about social/political standing conferred by birth. I'm not saying that you are wrong in your conclusions...

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> This is the problem right here. The "ideal that all people are created equal." The truth is, they are not. There are differences in IQ, differences in emotional capacity, differences in physical strength, differences in programming ability, etc. Here's what that phrase originally meant: European-style nobility is a mistake. It's not that you are better than me, not because of IQ, emotional capacity, physical strength, or anything of that nature. Instead, the idea was that you were better than me because your great-great-great-grandfather helped the king put his trousers on every morning, and got rewarded with a hereditary title, and you inherited it, and therefore you are my "better" because you have a title and I don't. And the older the title, the better it was, even though that means the less it had anything to do with you! So when the Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal", it's not talking about IQ or physical strength. It's not even talking about different economic outcomes. It's talking about social/political standing conferred by birth. I'm not saying that you are wrong in your conclusions...