4 ms·

> Inequality is a must, this idea that its bad is based solely on a philosophy of evil. Inequality might be bad for a variety of reasons, and not solely based

> Inequality is a must, this idea that its bad is based solely on a philosophy of evil. Inequality might be bad for a variety of reasons, and not solely based on some notion of evil. A common reason cited is the lack of efficiency it can create in a market. A dominant player might suck the money velocity out of the system (i.e. take everyone's money) without some sort of redistribution mechanism. The market could lose it's vibrancy as players go into a simple sustenance mode or be destroyed. I think dvt points to the injustice side too, you can have inequality due to unjust actions. For example, if you use your dominant position to tilt the playing field in your favor with to the detriment of the system as a whole. An example might be to pay lawmakers to make a tax loophole for yourself, or worse, be given some sort of grant for being dominant, just because you can.

pedro_hab 9y ago
I agree with you that the market allows for it to me somewhat manipulated, one could argue that's how it works. But that's where I think there may be a better solution, (again a personal option), but I also think it could be a feature, someone with power can control it, but to what extent is the real question. There is a lot of talk around how the rich are powerful, I have checked, and the richest around don't have that much money. The US spends trillions a year, that's a lot of money, there isn't a single trillionaire, there isn't a corporation valued at a trillion dollars (yet, almost there though). If you round up the rich's money, it won't last that long. and now you destroyed the system. They don't control everything, they may control the market but the market is huge compared to them, and the rich do not have an alliance to control it, making them weaker. And you just accepted that the state (lawmakers) are corrupt, as people tend to be. So the redistribution of wealth would use these corrupt people to make the world a better place, the idea is flawed in that sense, you would need to speculate on a new righteous system excluding the corrupt, for redistribution of wealth to even have a chance work (people actually getting the money), and then speculate on how this would be beneficial.

pedro_hab 9y ago

I agree with you that the market allows for it to me somewhat manipulated, one could argue that's how it works. But that's where I think there may be a better solution, (again a personal option), but I also think it could be a feature, someone with power can control it, but to what extent is the real question. There is a lot of talk around how the rich are powerful, I have checked, and the richest around don't have that much money. The US spends trillions a year, that's a lot of money, there isn't a single trillionaire, there isn't a corporation valued at a trillion dollars (yet, almost there though). If you round up the rich's money, it won't last that long. and now you destroyed the system. They don't control everything, they may control the market but the market is huge compared to them, and the rich do not have an alliance to control it, making them weaker. And you just accepted that the state (lawmakers) are corrupt, as people tend to be. So the redistribution of wealth would use these corrupt people to make the world a better place, the idea is flawed in that sense, you would need to speculate on a new righteous system excluding the corrupt, for redistribution of wealth to even have a chance work (people actually getting the money), and then speculate on how this would be beneficial.