4 ms·
>redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO. Why not? We essentially distributed it up, why can't it come back down?
by prolikewh0a 8y ago
>redistribution of wealth is not practical IMO.
Why not? We essentially distributed it up, why can't it come back down?
- ryanwaggoner 8y agoNo we didn’t. There isn’t a fixed amount of wealth that we just need to divvy up fairly. Wealth can be created and destroyed. It’s not a zero sum game.
- black6 8y ago> It’s not a zero sum game. The very definition of inequality, unfortunately.
- closeparen 8y agoThat’s not how inequality works. Two people each having $5 is a low—inequality situation. One person having $10 and another having $100 is a high inequality situation, even though minimum and average wealth are both higher.
- ryandrake 8y agoHow about all three? Wealth can be created, destroyed, and distributed. Wealth is redistributed all the time. Sometimes it’s called taxes, dividends, wages, etc. When it goes from the poor to the rich, we call it the free market. There are even make-believe concepts like “Trickle Down Economics” that describe wealth going from the rich to the poor.
- mmirate 8y agoCounterintuitively, the sole root of all zero-sum economics is self-fulfilling prophecy of it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s https://youtube.com/watch?v=iV18Xx5EkaE&t=5m19s