5 ms·

Agree entirely with this! Capitalism's benefit in my opinion is far from equality. People view 'inequality' as a problem, but I'd say to be more accurate, pove

by alehul 9y ago

Agree entirely with this! Capitalism's benefit in my opinion is far from equality. People view 'inequality' as a problem, but I'd say to be more accurate, poverty is the problem while equality seems like an easy solution.

andrepd 9y ago
But inequality is a problem in and of itself. The fact that some people have obscene amounts of money means some other people have less wealth that they could have. Obviously I'm oversimplifying and perfect equality isn't achievable (or even desirable).
- alehul 9y ago
  I see your point, but is spreading wealth out the goal? Oftentimes, that obscene concentration of wealth is the result of something that has enhanced everyone's lives in a way we'd struggle to measure quantitatively. An example would be the wealth concentration created from mobile phones, which enable much more effective communication and, possibly more importantly, the ability to call for help (police, ambulance, etc.) from anywhere at any time.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    Why do you assume that without wealth concentration there would be no mobile phones?
  - madmatt1123 9y ago
    Replying to andrepd's comment to your comment: The incredible amount of Work, Capital Outlay, Engineering, etc.etc.etc. that is required to create mobile phones is a huge barrier to any group of people doing so. Therefore, they are incentivized to generate a profit on each phone they eventually produce/sell. If the phones are popular enough, then they may make quite a lot of money. Like jesus dude, nobody forces anyone to buy a phone - everybody is doing it of their own volition and that's why mobile phone developers get rich.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Wealth is not subject to zero-sum reallocation like that, at least not in the long term. If you prohibit the activities that create wealth in the name of reducing inequality, you don’t get to reallocate it others, it just never gets created. This satisfies the emotional need to know that no one is doing better than you, but doesn’t make you materially better off.
madmatt1123 9y ago
'Inequality' when it exacerbates poverty, when it's egregiously in favour of the few who control the most wealth, when it is overwhelmingly unfair (which I think for the most part it is not in western society) is a major problem where it exists as I've described. Equality lately needs to be better-defined in conversations because it's being redefined perniciously by ideologues who wish to see it mean Equality of Outcome, rather than Equality of the Application of Law/Equality of Opportunity/"Formal" Equality. I wonder if Capitalism's greatest benefit is the pursuit of individual goals, without undue control by the state when the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislative elements are in balance and support Capitalistic economics.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I don't see inequality as a problem and don't want to have total equality. What I see as a problem is that inequality keeps rising and more and more of the benefits of the economy go to a small number of people. That's a very unhealthy trend in my view.
sokoloff 9y ago
I believe that today's standard of living in the US is substantially higher across all income/wealth deciles than it was in 1950. I also think that the engine of capitalism is a substantial reason for those gains, even as it has created a wider spread of income inequality than in past eras. Do you believe that the 25th percentile of income today has a higher standard of living than the 50th percentile person in "the golden age" of 1950? I do. Today's 25th percentile person is likely to have air conditioning, refrigeration, internet, a cell phone, a microwave oven, an HDTV, and a reliable car that needs very little routine maintenance and has air bags and antilock brakes. It's almost unthinkable that they wouldn't have hot and cold indoor running water and bathrooms even in rural areas. Today's 50th percentile is beating 1950s 75th percentile adding easy, affordable, safe, and reliable air transportation and living in a far larger house than their 1950s half-again higher counterpart. Today's 75th percentile is beating the 95th percentile in 1950... All of them have better health care options, and a longer life expectancy.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  In general many things are better, but there's no rationale, for example, for US life expectancy lagging other modern nations (as well as dropping for the last couple of years). https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/health/us-life-expectancy-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/health/us-life-expectancy-stu... In general the US expectancy is leaving the cluster of traditional first world nations and approaching the next cluster of more recent additions to the modern world. https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Health-at-a-Glance-2013-Press-Release-USA.pdf https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Health-at-a-Glance-2013-Pr... So to say the US standard of living is rising - I would say that unless we correct some fundamental issues that rise cannot just be blindly counted upon.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    > there's no rationale, for example, for US life expectancy lagging other modern nations I wouldn't be surprised if more than half the lag is obesity (or diet and [lack of] exercise, depending on the level of "why?" you want to look at). Walk around a shopping area in an European city. Then walk around a shopping mall or Walmart in the US. The difference is not subtle. (I'm also part of the problem as I'm on the American side of scale, so to speak.)

by alehul 9y ago

andrepd 9y ago

But inequality is a problem in and of itself. The fact that some people have obscene amounts of money means some other people have less wealth that they could have. Obviously I'm oversimplifying and perfect equality isn't achievable (or even desirable).

alehul 9y ago
I see your point, but is spreading wealth out the goal? Oftentimes, that obscene concentration of wealth is the result of something that has enhanced everyone's lives in a way we'd struggle to measure quantitatively. An example would be the wealth concentration created from mobile phones, which enable much more effective communication and, possibly more importantly, the ability to call for help (police, ambulance, etc.) from anywhere at any time.
- andrepd 9y ago
  Why do you assume that without wealth concentration there would be no mobile phones?
- madmatt1123 9y ago
  Replying to andrepd's comment to your comment: The incredible amount of Work, Capital Outlay, Engineering, etc.etc.etc. that is required to create mobile phones is a huge barrier to any group of people doing so. Therefore, they are incentivized to generate a profit on each phone they eventually produce/sell. If the phones are popular enough, then they may make quite a lot of money. Like jesus dude, nobody forces anyone to buy a phone - everybody is doing it of their own volition and that's why mobile phone developers get rich.
closeparen 9y ago
Wealth is not subject to zero-sum reallocation like that, at least not in the long term. If you prohibit the activities that create wealth in the name of reducing inequality, you don’t get to reallocate it others, it just never gets created. This satisfies the emotional need to know that no one is doing better than you, but doesn’t make you materially better off.

madmatt1123 9y ago

'Inequality' when it exacerbates poverty, when it's egregiously in favour of the few who control the most wealth, when it is overwhelmingly unfair (which I think for the most part it is not in western society) is a major problem where it exists as I've described. Equality lately needs to be better-defined in conversations because it's being redefined perniciously by ideologues who wish to see it mean Equality of Outcome, rather than Equality of the Application of Law/Equality of Opportunity/"Formal" Equality. I wonder if Capitalism's greatest benefit is the pursuit of individual goals, without undue control by the state when the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislative elements are in balance and support Capitalistic economics.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I don't see inequality as a problem and don't want to have total equality. What I see as a problem is that inequality keeps rising and more and more of the benefits of the economy go to a small number of people. That's a very unhealthy trend in my view.

sokoloff 9y ago

I believe that today's standard of living in the US is substantially higher across all income/wealth deciles than it was in 1950. I also think that the engine of capitalism is a substantial reason for those gains, even as it has created a wider spread of income inequality than in past eras. Do you believe that the 25th percentile of income today has a higher standard of living than the 50th percentile person in "the golden age" of 1950? I do. Today's 25th percentile person is likely to have air conditioning, refrigeration, internet, a cell phone, a microwave oven, an HDTV, and a reliable car that needs very little routine maintenance and has air bags and antilock brakes. It's almost unthinkable that they wouldn't have hot and cold indoor running water and bathrooms even in rural areas. Today's 50th percentile is beating 1950s 75th percentile adding easy, affordable, safe, and reliable air transportation and living in a far larger house than their 1950s half-again higher counterpart. Today's 75th percentile is beating the 95th percentile in 1950... All of them have better health care options, and a longer life expectancy.

dv_dt 9y ago
In general many things are better, but there's no rationale, for example, for US life expectancy lagging other modern nations (as well as dropping for the last couple of years). https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/health/us-life-expectancy-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/health/us-life-expectancy-stu... In general the US expectancy is leaving the cluster of traditional first world nations and approaching the next cluster of more recent additions to the modern world. https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Health-at-a-Glance-2013-Press-Release-USA.pdf https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Health-at-a-Glance-2013-Pr... So to say the US standard of living is rising - I would say that unless we correct some fundamental issues that rise cannot just be blindly counted upon.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  > there's no rationale, for example, for US life expectancy lagging other modern nations I wouldn't be surprised if more than half the lag is obesity (or diet and [lack of] exercise, depending on the level of "why?" you want to look at). Walk around a shopping area in an European city. Then walk around a shopping mall or Walmart in the US. The difference is not subtle. (I'm also part of the problem as I'm on the American side of scale, so to speak.)