3 ms·

He seems to be talking about rapid changes to inequality. But inequality has been in steady decline for centuries (the last few decades in the US are a blip in

He seems to be talking about rapid changes to inequality. But inequality has been in steady decline for centuries (the last few decades in the US are a blip in comparison to the overall downward trend). These general downward trends that occur at the pace of decades or centuries can't be directly attributed to warfare, can it?

munificent 10y ago
We have certainly had no shortage of wars in the past couple of centuries. Just in the past two hundred years, in order of largest death tolls[1], I see: * World War II * Taiping Rebellion * Second Sino-Japanese War * World War I/Great War * Dungan Revolt * Chinese Civil War * Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention * Napoleonic Wars * Second Congo War/Great War of Africa * Shaka's conquests * Vietnam War/Second Indochina War * Biafra War * Mexican Revolution * Soviet war in Afghanistan * Korean War * Iran–Iraq War/First Persian Gulf War * American Civil War * Spanish American Wars of Independence * Angolan Civil War * Ethiopian Civil War * Spanish Civil War All told, those are something like a couple hundred million dead. Them for each of those human bodies, consider how many living are profoundly affected by their death. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
- openasocket 10y ago
  But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Also many of these wars were pretty localized, so we should see the drops and inequality in the immediate area and a reduced effect elsewhere.
  - munificent 10y ago
    > But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Many of these are not short term events. You have a several years-long war, with a rise in conflict before it and a gradual repair and rebuild afterwards. There are enough of them that I wouldn't be surprised if the overall graph was smooth. > Also many of these wars were pretty localized, so we should see the drops and inequality in the immediate area and a reduced effect elsewhere. In the modern world, few things are truly localized.
    - openasocket 10y ago
      That's a valid explanation for how wars could cause the trends in inequality, but without further evidence this is a specious argument. It also doesn't explain regional variations in income inequality. Look at the list of countries by income inequality: there isn't really a correlation between income inequality and "war-iness". I think wars can increase equality, but they are far from the only cause.
      - munificent 10y ago
        Sure, I'm not arguing that all of the inequality changes are due to wars, just that there have been enough of them to potentially explain it.

munificent 10y ago

We have certainly had no shortage of wars in the past couple of centuries. Just in the past two hundred years, in order of largest death tolls[1], I see: * World War II * Taiping Rebellion * Second Sino-Japanese War * World War I/Great War * Dungan Revolt * Chinese Civil War * Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention * Napoleonic Wars * Second Congo War/Great War of Africa * Shaka's conquests * Vietnam War/Second Indochina War * Biafra War * Mexican Revolution * Soviet war in Afghanistan * Korean War * Iran–Iraq War/First Persian Gulf War * American Civil War * Spanish American Wars of Independence * Angolan Civil War * Ethiopian Civil War * Spanish Civil War All told, those are something like a couple hundred million dead. Them for each of those human bodies, consider how many living are profoundly affected by their death. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

openasocket 10y ago
But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Also many of these wars were pretty localized, so we should see the drops and inequality in the immediate area and a reduced effect elsewhere.
- munificent 10y ago
  > But the trend is generally downward, not a bunch of sharp decreases that would indicate being caused by a specific short-term event. Many of these are not short term events. You have a several years-long war, with a rise in conflict before it and a gradual repair and rebuild afterwards. There are enough of them that I wouldn't be surprised if the overall graph was smooth. > Also many of these wars were pretty localized, so we should see the drops and inequality in the immediate area and a reduced effect elsewhere. In the modern world, few things are truly localized.
  - openasocket 10y ago
    That's a valid explanation for how wars could cause the trends in inequality, but without further evidence this is a specious argument. It also doesn't explain regional variations in income inequality. Look at the list of countries by income inequality: there isn't really a correlation between income inequality and "war-iness". I think wars can increase equality, but they are far from the only cause.
    - munificent 10y ago
      Sure, I'm not arguing that all of the inequality changes are due to wars, just that there have been enough of them to potentially explain it.