3 ms·
> "only becomes irrelevant when the bottom is acceptably high" or, put another way, only becomes relevant when the bottom is unacceptably low. I'm much more i
by lotharbot 11y ago
> "only becomes irrelevant when the bottom is acceptably high"
or, put another way, only becomes relevant when the bottom is unacceptably low.
I'm much more interested in worrying about where the bottom is than worrying about the multiplier. It's a proxy measure -- perhaps a good proxy measure, but still a proxy measure. Instead of focusing efforts on the proxy measure as a whole, focus on specific issues that matter at the low end. If it happens that some specific issue is best resolved by closing tax loopholes or steepening the tax progression curve, OK -- but don't do it just to "lower inequality", do it to solve a specific problem.
- darawk 11y agoI mostly agree. However, I think it's a little more than a proxy measure. I think people often conflate the notion of capitalism the resource allocation algorithm with capitalism the moral philosophy. The former says that assigning people directly the fruits of their labors leads to an efficient marketplace and ultimately greater welfare for all. The latter says that the efficacy of the former grants those people a moral right to those fruits. The former is almost certainly true - capitalism is much more effective at accelerating efficiency and innovation than anything else we've tried. But the moral corollary doesn't necessarily follow. And if you accept the former but deny the latter, you're faced with a question: Do we really need extreme outliers of wealth in order to achieve the benefits of capitalism? And if the answer is no, then does it really make sense to let those outliers keep all those resources?