5 ms·

Society now is far fairer than 99.9% of all societies in recorded history. There isn't any universal law that suggests that if we get 10% more income inequalit

Society now is far fairer than 99.9% of all societies in recorded history. There isn't any universal law that suggests that if we get 10% more income inequality we'll tip over into violence. Historically, we're currently more than "fair enough." Expectations may have changed, but a prophecy that we're 10 years from revolution needs more justification than you've given it. There's nothing in basic human nature that makes current levels of unfairness unsustainable.

int_19h 8y ago
> Society now is far fairer than 99.9% of all societies in recorded history. By what metric? It certainly isn't the case when you look at wealth distribution. Last time we had that much wealth disparity was right before the Great Depression. Given that it was followed by the New Deal, I think it's fair to say that political elites at the time didn't see that as sustainable. Then also, you have to consider the differences in societies then and now. Greater wealth inequality is more sustainable with more oppression, for example. If you can suppress free flow of information, you can conceal the magnitude of the gap somewhat. If you can physically remove the "rabble rousers", you can slow down the spread of discontent. And so on. Specifically: > Historically, we're currently more than "fair enough." There's no such thing as "historically fair enough". "Fair enough" is what keeps the majority content, here, now. It's inherently tied to the context. When people vote en masse for brazen populists (whether left or right wing) who promise fast solutions to all their economic problems, despite the obvious risks of that arrangement, that in and of itself is clear evidence that they don't see it as "fair enough" - and so it isn't.
- aetherson 8y ago
  By every metric? Your point is that inequality is high by 20th Century standards. That's certainly fair! But the vast majority of history is some combination of feudal lords, monarchs, tribal leaders and strongmen. Ask a serf about fairness. Also, I think that your account of the New Deal is weird and wrong. It was an (only arguably successful) attempt to deal with the Great Depression, not to combat people unsatisfied with wealth inequality in the 20's. We've had lots of brazen populists in the world, including during the 20th Century. I could be convinced that the current status quo is rapidly heading towards violence -- I'm not convinced that you're wrong. But that's quite a claim, and the evidence you've cited is very sketchy.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > But the vast majority of history is some combination of feudal lords, monarchs, tribal leaders and strongmen. Ask a serf about fairness. You might be surprised, actually. Wealth inequality in UK was higher at the turn of the 20th century than it was at the turn of 19th, for example. And if you went a century back, it was lower still. A 16th century serf was less impoverished, relatively speaking, than a 19th century factory worker! And it was because of processes like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure Going further back, you'll generally find that levels of inequality increased as economy went from feudal arrangements to capitalism. Under feudalism, wealth was mostly about land, and you could only hold as much land as you could protect - and other feudal lords would see to it that you wouldn't have too much, lest you became too powerful and threatening to them. But today, most wealth is intangible, and sky is the limit to how much of it can be in one hands. https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300 https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300 So when I'm saying that our levels of inequality are lower than Victorian England, that's actually comparing to some of the periods of the worst economic inequality that we have witnessed, at least in the history in which we can reasonably measure such things. And if you only look at US, it's even worse - when I say that we're at the levels of wealth inequality last seen right before the Great Depression, consider also that it means that we're now at the levels higher than what they were at any time up to ~1850, and some reasonably argue that they are higher than they were at any point in this country's history. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/01/income-inequality-today-may-be-the-highest-since-the-nations-founding/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/01/incom...? > It was an (only arguably successful) attempt to deal with the Great Depression, not to combat people unsatisfied with wealth inequality in the 20's. It was one of the most massive wealth redistribution programs in the history of the United States, and it created a great deal of the modern social safety net. Even if reduction of wealth inequality were not the explicit goal, it certainly served that purpose. But if we look at the political campaign promises at the time, it's very clear that New Deal was sold to the public quite explicitly as a way to deal with income inequality. I mean, it was literally right there in the speech that gave us the very term "New Deal", the one that Roosevelt made in his first presidential campaign: "Now it is worth remembering, and the cold figures of finance prove it, that during that time there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay, although those same figures proved that the cost of production fell very greatly; corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten, and by no means an adequate proportion was even paid out in dividends -- the stockholder was forgotten. Enormous corporate surpluses piled up -- the most stupendous in history. Where, under the spell of delirious speculation, did those surpluses go? Let us talk economics that the figures prove and that we can understand. Why, they went chiefly in two directions: first, into new and unnecessary plants which now stand stark and idle; and second, into the call-money market of Wall Street, either directly by the corporations, or indirectly through the banks. Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth. I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people. Let us all here assembled constitute ourselves prophets of a new order of competence and of courage. This is more than a political campaign; it is a call to arms. Give me your help, not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people." Those were the promises that FDR got elected on, and re-elected three times after. You think that people who voted for him in droves didn't have them in mind?

int_19h 8y ago

> Society now is far fairer than 99.9% of all societies in recorded history. By what metric? It certainly isn't the case when you look at wealth distribution. Last time we had that much wealth disparity was right before the Great Depression. Given that it was followed by the New Deal, I think it's fair to say that political elites at the time didn't see that as sustainable. Then also, you have to consider the differences in societies then and now. Greater wealth inequality is more sustainable with more oppression, for example. If you can suppress free flow of information, you can conceal the magnitude of the gap somewhat. If you can physically remove the "rabble rousers", you can slow down the spread of discontent. And so on. Specifically: > Historically, we're currently more than "fair enough." There's no such thing as "historically fair enough". "Fair enough" is what keeps the majority content, here, now. It's inherently tied to the context. When people vote en masse for brazen populists (whether left or right wing) who promise fast solutions to all their economic problems, despite the obvious risks of that arrangement, that in and of itself is clear evidence that they don't see it as "fair enough" - and so it isn't.

aetherson 8y ago
By every metric? Your point is that inequality is high by 20th Century standards. That's certainly fair! But the vast majority of history is some combination of feudal lords, monarchs, tribal leaders and strongmen. Ask a serf about fairness. Also, I think that your account of the New Deal is weird and wrong. It was an (only arguably successful) attempt to deal with the Great Depression, not to combat people unsatisfied with wealth inequality in the 20's. We've had lots of brazen populists in the world, including during the 20th Century. I could be convinced that the current status quo is rapidly heading towards violence -- I'm not convinced that you're wrong. But that's quite a claim, and the evidence you've cited is very sketchy.
- int_19h 8y ago
  > But the vast majority of history is some combination of feudal lords, monarchs, tribal leaders and strongmen. Ask a serf about fairness. You might be surprised, actually. Wealth inequality in UK was higher at the turn of the 20th century than it was at the turn of 19th, for example. And if you went a century back, it was lower still. A 16th century serf was less impoverished, relatively speaking, than a 19th century factory worker! And it was because of processes like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure Going further back, you'll generally find that levels of inequality increased as economy went from feudal arrangements to capitalism. Under feudalism, wealth was mostly about land, and you could only hold as much land as you could protect - and other feudal lords would see to it that you wouldn't have too much, lest you became too powerful and threatening to them. But today, most wealth is intangible, and sky is the limit to how much of it can be in one hands. https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300 https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300 So when I'm saying that our levels of inequality are lower than Victorian England, that's actually comparing to some of the periods of the worst economic inequality that we have witnessed, at least in the history in which we can reasonably measure such things. And if you only look at US, it's even worse - when I say that we're at the levels of wealth inequality last seen right before the Great Depression, consider also that it means that we're now at the levels higher than what they were at any time up to ~1850, and some reasonably argue that they are higher than they were at any point in this country's history. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/01/income-inequality-today-may-be-the-highest-since-the-nations-founding/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/01/incom...? > It was an (only arguably successful) attempt to deal with the Great Depression, not to combat people unsatisfied with wealth inequality in the 20's. It was one of the most massive wealth redistribution programs in the history of the United States, and it created a great deal of the modern social safety net. Even if reduction of wealth inequality were not the explicit goal, it certainly served that purpose. But if we look at the political campaign promises at the time, it's very clear that New Deal was sold to the public quite explicitly as a way to deal with income inequality. I mean, it was literally right there in the speech that gave us the very term "New Deal", the one that Roosevelt made in his first presidential campaign: "Now it is worth remembering, and the cold figures of finance prove it, that during that time there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay, although those same figures proved that the cost of production fell very greatly; corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten, and by no means an adequate proportion was even paid out in dividends -- the stockholder was forgotten. Enormous corporate surpluses piled up -- the most stupendous in history. Where, under the spell of delirious speculation, did those surpluses go? Let us talk economics that the figures prove and that we can understand. Why, they went chiefly in two directions: first, into new and unnecessary plants which now stand stark and idle; and second, into the call-money market of Wall Street, either directly by the corporations, or indirectly through the banks. Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth. I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people. Let us all here assembled constitute ourselves prophets of a new order of competence and of courage. This is more than a political campaign; it is a call to arms. Give me your help, not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people." Those were the promises that FDR got elected on, and re-elected three times after. You think that people who voted for him in droves didn't have them in mind?