12 ms·

>Economic inequality [...] is both highly moralized (right-thinking people agree it’s the root of all evil) No way. Even if all the money and stuff were ideall

>Economic inequality [...] is both highly moralized (right-thinking people agree it’s the root of all evil) No way. Even if all the money and stuff were ideally distributed our troubles wouldn't be over. Resentment and envy would find other fish to fry!

caio1982 9y ago
Inequality can be seen in two ways: extreme poverty versus absurdly rich upper class way of living in the same area (hello brazilians), and mostly everyone at least being self maintainable (say, your average european) even though your perception about others — the envy you talk about — is more of a psychological trap than an actual necessity in your life.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Inequality means stagnation of outcomes. You don't just want diversity for ethical reasons - not everyone cares about that anyway - but because by denying talented individuals the opportunity to develop, you're sabotaging future prosperity. Of course you can argue that as long as you have enough talent this doesn't matter. But invention and innovation are wildcards, and you can't always create gamechanging developments to order. If access to environments and resources that develop talent is heavily rationed, you're more likely to get a non-linear collapse in output than a linear decrease.
  - panglott 9y ago
    There's a deeper argument here, too. Growing inequality is an indicator that the iron law of oligarchy is taking hold. The book "Why Nations Fail" divides societies into those with inclusive and extractive political and economic institutions. Inclusive institutions allow the benefits of productivity improvements to be shared broadly, while extractive institutions fear that the creative destruction of technological change will imperil the position and authority of the elites that benefit. There are some great stories in there about Tiberius and Elizabeth I banning technological innovations. https://panglott.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/books-why-nations-fail/ https://panglott.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/books-why-nations-...
joshuahedlund 9y ago
He also says "it’s not clear that inequality (as opposed to poverty) is a moral abomination, or that reducing it is progress," so it may be unclear exactly what he means by the first statement.
- neolefty 9y ago
  Is he talking about extreme inequality, or inequality in general?
  - danielam 9y ago
    My guess is both, i.e., inequality as such is not a problem, whereas poverty is. Frankfurt makes a similar distinction in "On Inequality". One way to distinguish the two is to observe that it is possible to have a society in which everyone is equally poor and thus one in which inequality does not exist. Conversely, observe that the difference in material wealth between the upper middle class and the billionaire class poses no problems where wealth itself is concerned. Both classes are very well off. Now, there may be problems that are more likely to occur when economic inequality obtains given the power that money can afford people in practice. But as such, inequality itself not the root of these problems and not the ultimate problem itself.
- adnzzzzZ 9y ago
  He likely means that a healthy level of inequality is necessary otherwise productive individuals won't have incentives to be productive. There are real differences in output between different individuals and trying to normalize this difference means that society loses. With this in mind you can easily say things like "inequality is not a moral abomination and reducing it is not progress".
panglott 9y ago
The book "Trekonomics" has some interesting discussion about this, comparing it to status- and prestige-driven competition in academica. However, even if prestige-driven competition is the norm at least everyone has enough food and medical care?

caio1982 9y ago

Inequality can be seen in two ways: extreme poverty versus absurdly rich upper class way of living in the same area (hello brazilians), and mostly everyone at least being self maintainable (say, your average european) even though your perception about others — the envy you talk about — is more of a psychological trap than an actual necessity in your life.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
Inequality means stagnation of outcomes. You don't just want diversity for ethical reasons - not everyone cares about that anyway - but because by denying talented individuals the opportunity to develop, you're sabotaging future prosperity. Of course you can argue that as long as you have enough talent this doesn't matter. But invention and innovation are wildcards, and you can't always create gamechanging developments to order. If access to environments and resources that develop talent is heavily rationed, you're more likely to get a non-linear collapse in output than a linear decrease.
- panglott 9y ago
  There's a deeper argument here, too. Growing inequality is an indicator that the iron law of oligarchy is taking hold. The book "Why Nations Fail" divides societies into those with inclusive and extractive political and economic institutions. Inclusive institutions allow the benefits of productivity improvements to be shared broadly, while extractive institutions fear that the creative destruction of technological change will imperil the position and authority of the elites that benefit. There are some great stories in there about Tiberius and Elizabeth I banning technological innovations. https://panglott.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/books-why-nations-fail/ https://panglott.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/books-why-nations-...

joshuahedlund 9y ago

He also says "it’s not clear that inequality (as opposed to poverty) is a moral abomination, or that reducing it is progress," so it may be unclear exactly what he means by the first statement.

neolefty 9y ago
Is he talking about extreme inequality, or inequality in general?
- danielam 9y ago
  My guess is both, i.e., inequality as such is not a problem, whereas poverty is. Frankfurt makes a similar distinction in "On Inequality". One way to distinguish the two is to observe that it is possible to have a society in which everyone is equally poor and thus one in which inequality does not exist. Conversely, observe that the difference in material wealth between the upper middle class and the billionaire class poses no problems where wealth itself is concerned. Both classes are very well off. Now, there may be problems that are more likely to occur when economic inequality obtains given the power that money can afford people in practice. But as such, inequality itself not the root of these problems and not the ultimate problem itself.
adnzzzzZ 9y ago
He likely means that a healthy level of inequality is necessary otherwise productive individuals won't have incentives to be productive. There are real differences in output between different individuals and trying to normalize this difference means that society loses. With this in mind you can easily say things like "inequality is not a moral abomination and reducing it is not progress".

panglott 9y ago

The book "Trekonomics" has some interesting discussion about this, comparing it to status- and prestige-driven competition in academica. However, even if prestige-driven competition is the norm at least everyone has enough food and medical care?