4 ms·

Let's agree that you can't have it another way. But there are still huge questions attendant to that arrangement. For example, should opportunity be unlimited,

Let's agree that you can't have it another way. But there are still huge questions attendant to that arrangement. For example, should opportunity be unlimited, or is the prospect of earning enough for a very comfortable life sufficient motivation? Or, how much are we willing to let families build dynastic wealth? Shouldn't wealthy people's children be expected to compete without a huge head start over the children of poor families? Shrugging suggests to me that the conversation is over, but I think it's just beginning once we recognize that this is a fundamental economic force. How do we harness it as a society and pursue a just world?

CamperBob2 9y ago
For example, should opportunity be unlimited, or is the prospect of earning enough for a very comfortable life sufficient motivation? One problem with this idea is that the factors that determine what's meant by a "very comfortable life" will necessarily have to be decided by politicians and bureaucrats and imposed by force. By distorting (if not entirely removing) the effects of economic competition, a system of that nature turns the problem of achieving material success into an almost-purely political one. When people who don't actually create value are given excessive power over people who do, economic progress stops. We've seen the outcome in enough places, from the Soviet Union to modern-day Venezuela, that it almost seems inevitable: the rich still get richer, but the rising tide that's supposed to lift all the boats never seems to come in.
- jorvi 9y ago
  But what's being done in the West isn't working either? The rich (especially the 0.1%) have seen ludicrous spikes in growth whilst the middle class collapses.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    The fact that we don't have riots in the streets means that the collapse of the middle class has been greatly exaggerated. Most people are better off in most material ways than they were in decades past, like it or not. Even if the numbers in their bank accounts aren't as large. Meanwhile, in Venezuela...
    - breatheoften 9y ago
      Are you claiming with your statement that riots in the street are the only mechanism for supplying meaningful evidence of a significant inequality between middle and upper classes?
      - CamperBob2 9y ago
        No, I'm claiming that market economies are not zero-sum games, and that a number in somebody else's bank account isn't the best thing to focus on as you go through life.
        tmnvix 9y ago
        That "number in somebody else's bank account" is meaningful. It represents a claim on a share of the world's resources. Those resources are essentially finite.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - ionised 9y ago
      > Most people are better off in most material ways than they were in decades past I see this sentiment a lot and I find it utterly meaningless. The issue is not that people have higher or lower living standards than they have in the past, but that their share in economic prosperity is declining while the shares of a small few are skyrocketing. That is a serious problem that will lead to a sort of modern feudal rentier society.
- GavinMcG 9y ago
  Hardly. It could be as simple as setting a high tax rate at some threshold of income. Not sure why you're jumping straight to central control of the economy as though it's the only option - it's the most extreme option among many.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    How is "setting a (presumably very) high tax rate at some threshold of income" not a strategy for implementing "central control of the economy"? At some level of income confiscation, you're basically describing slavery.
    - GavinMcG 9y ago
      All those poor slaves who were earning over $300,000 a year in the 1960s United States, and had to pay a 91% marginal tax rate on the extra. It's entirely reasonable to debate the appropriateness of such rates, but claiming that "slavery" is even close to a legitimate comparison demonstrates a shocking disregard for the plight of actual slaves, both past and present.
      - CamperBob2 9y ago
        (Shrug) A gun at your head is still a gun at your head, regardless of the number in your bank account.
        AstralStorm 9y ago
        Unless you're paid for getting the gun held to your head, right? /s Generally without such taxation such "personal money" gets frozen out of economy and competition as well gets distorted. The rich have many more options to avoid the taxes as well.
        GavinMcG 9y ago
        No, not really. The abstract threat of force for acting as though you could possibly have or accomplish everything without having had the support of society is nothing like the very immediate threat of torture, rape, or death. They do happen to be on the same spectrum, which gives you only the barest excuse for such a callous view.

CamperBob2 9y ago

For example, should opportunity be unlimited, or is the prospect of earning enough for a very comfortable life sufficient motivation? One problem with this idea is that the factors that determine what's meant by a "very comfortable life" will necessarily have to be decided by politicians and bureaucrats and imposed by force. By distorting (if not entirely removing) the effects of economic competition, a system of that nature turns the problem of achieving material success into an almost-purely political one. When people who don't actually create value are given excessive power over people who do, economic progress stops. We've seen the outcome in enough places, from the Soviet Union to modern-day Venezuela, that it almost seems inevitable: the rich still get richer, but the rising tide that's supposed to lift all the boats never seems to come in.

jorvi 9y ago
But what's being done in the West isn't working either? The rich (especially the 0.1%) have seen ludicrous spikes in growth whilst the middle class collapses.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  The fact that we don't have riots in the streets means that the collapse of the middle class has been greatly exaggerated. Most people are better off in most material ways than they were in decades past, like it or not. Even if the numbers in their bank accounts aren't as large. Meanwhile, in Venezuela...
  - breatheoften 9y ago
    Are you claiming with your statement that riots in the street are the only mechanism for supplying meaningful evidence of a significant inequality between middle and upper classes?
    - CamperBob2 9y ago
      No, I'm claiming that market economies are not zero-sum games, and that a number in somebody else's bank account isn't the best thing to focus on as you go through life.
      - tmnvix 9y ago
        That "number in somebody else's bank account" is meaningful. It represents a claim on a share of the world's resources. Those resources are essentially finite.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - ionised 9y ago
    > Most people are better off in most material ways than they were in decades past I see this sentiment a lot and I find it utterly meaningless. The issue is not that people have higher or lower living standards than they have in the past, but that their share in economic prosperity is declining while the shares of a small few are skyrocketing. That is a serious problem that will lead to a sort of modern feudal rentier society.
GavinMcG 9y ago
Hardly. It could be as simple as setting a high tax rate at some threshold of income. Not sure why you're jumping straight to central control of the economy as though it's the only option - it's the most extreme option among many.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  How is "setting a (presumably very) high tax rate at some threshold of income" not a strategy for implementing "central control of the economy"? At some level of income confiscation, you're basically describing slavery.
  - GavinMcG 9y ago
    All those poor slaves who were earning over $300,000 a year in the 1960s United States, and had to pay a 91% marginal tax rate on the extra. It's entirely reasonable to debate the appropriateness of such rates, but claiming that "slavery" is even close to a legitimate comparison demonstrates a shocking disregard for the plight of actual slaves, both past and present.
    - CamperBob2 9y ago
      (Shrug) A gun at your head is still a gun at your head, regardless of the number in your bank account.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        Unless you're paid for getting the gun held to your head, right? /s Generally without such taxation such "personal money" gets frozen out of economy and competition as well gets distorted. The rich have many more options to avoid the taxes as well.
      - GavinMcG 9y ago
        No, not really. The abstract threat of force for acting as though you could possibly have or accomplish everything without having had the support of society is nothing like the very immediate threat of torture, rape, or death. They do happen to be on the same spectrum, which gives you only the barest excuse for such a callous view.