3 ms·

Inequalities of wealth mean more than the number of toys someone can afford. Wealth equals power, in a very real sense. Just a few examples: If you own a compa

Inequalities of wealth mean more than the number of toys someone can afford. Wealth equals power, in a very real sense. Just a few examples: If you own a company, or a TV station, or a news source, or a large number of shares in a company, your ability to influence the world is very much greater than someone who doesn't. Your relative influence over society is a zero-sum game. And your relative influence over society reduces when a small number of people get hugely rich. There are also resources that are drawn from a fixed-size pot. Land ownership for example. If a tiny number of people assume possession of vast amounts of land, the amount left for everyone else is reduced. It's a very good thing that people are being lifted out of poverty in the sense that they can afford food and shelter, basic sanitation and so on. But this is really the minimum we should aim for. Access to more toys can be a good thing in many cases, though I'm not convinced it's a good measure of how well society is doing. But being able to afford more electronic items or whatever does not really eliminate the problems caused by extreme wealth inequality.

castlecrasher2 8y ago
> If you own a company, or a TV station, or a news source, or a large number of shares in a company, your ability to influence the world is very much greater than someone who doesn't. Taken to the extreme, the logical conclusion here is no one can own a company, therefore one cannot own a part of a company lest they be able to buy up the whole company, and therefore one cannot own property lest they collect it and have more than others (inequality). To your last sentence, what problems are caused by inequality that aren't simply because of envy?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Taken to the extreme" That's usually a poor place to leap to.
aaron_m04 8y ago
> There are also resources that are drawn from a fixed-size pot. Land ownership for example. If a tiny number of people assume possession of vast amounts of land, the amount left for everyone else is reduced. Excellent point. Similarly, the pool of doctors is fixed in the short term, because it takes time for new doctors to go through medical school so that supply increases to meet demand. This means in the short term, rising inequality can drive up the price of medical costs (at least the part of these costs that goes to doctors' wages).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gogoaccount123 8y ago
But it's not just food, shelter, and sanitation that people can afford. Even the poorest of households now a days often has television, electronic toys of various sorts, a microwave, air conditioning, and much more. Let's hit on land ownership because it's something constantly discussed, but I think there to reality and perception come into deep conflict. Right now the vast majority of land in the US is available incredibly cheap. In fact various areas are literally giving away land for free if you promise to put a home on it - some even allowing mobile homes. There's even things like Cuyahoga National Park in Ohio. You can get a government for the least ranging from $500-$1000 month for a house along with 9+ acres of land for those that would like to setup a farm. Not free, but probably still beats the pants off 40 acres and a mule! But people don't want just any land. They want to live in the most elite and desirable areas in the entire country. Yet those elite and desirable areas were at one time no name backwoods that somebody else decided to develop - same as is likely happening today for what will be the 'elite and desirable' areas of tomorrow.

castlecrasher2 8y ago

> If you own a company, or a TV station, or a news source, or a large number of shares in a company, your ability to influence the world is very much greater than someone who doesn't. Taken to the extreme, the logical conclusion here is no one can own a company, therefore one cannot own a part of a company lest they be able to buy up the whole company, and therefore one cannot own property lest they collect it and have more than others (inequality). To your last sentence, what problems are caused by inequality that aren't simply because of envy?

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Taken to the extreme" That's usually a poor place to leap to.

aaron_m04 8y ago

> There are also resources that are drawn from a fixed-size pot. Land ownership for example. If a tiny number of people assume possession of vast amounts of land, the amount left for everyone else is reduced. Excellent point. Similarly, the pool of doctors is fixed in the short term, because it takes time for new doctors to go through medical school so that supply increases to meet demand. This means in the short term, rising inequality can drive up the price of medical costs (at least the part of these costs that goes to doctors' wages).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gogoaccount123 8y ago

But it's not just food, shelter, and sanitation that people can afford. Even the poorest of households now a days often has television, electronic toys of various sorts, a microwave, air conditioning, and much more. Let's hit on land ownership because it's something constantly discussed, but I think there to reality and perception come into deep conflict. Right now the vast majority of land in the US is available incredibly cheap. In fact various areas are literally giving away land for free if you promise to put a home on it - some even allowing mobile homes. There's even things like Cuyahoga National Park in Ohio. You can get a government for the least ranging from $500-$1000 month for a house along with 9+ acres of land for those that would like to setup a farm. Not free, but probably still beats the pants off 40 acres and a mule! But people don't want just any land. They want to live in the most elite and desirable areas in the entire country. Yet those elite and desirable areas were at one time no name backwoods that somebody else decided to develop - same as is likely happening today for what will be the 'elite and desirable' areas of tomorrow.