3 ms·

We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relati

We don’t have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty. Relative poverty, specifically, is what causes social unrest. (Perhaps here is another hole in your social sciences education?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho’.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered. I am also pro-meritocracy. Pareto is as widespread as the normal distribution. Sure. I'm also down with the idea that different groups will know different things and so will have vastly different outcomes in the economy. Thomas Sowell is a personal hero of mine, and I own and am working through something like 5 of his books. I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there’s that.. Octavia Butler's viewpoint in her books generally, but especially in the Parable of the Sower series, is valuable for its observation that much of human conflict is determined below the level of consciousness. Society can't ignore those forces, precisely because they can override conscious rationality and are powerful enough to tear even the most powerful societies apart. Principles are important. However, we are not creatures of pure rationality. If a society tries to live as such, purely on principles, it will fail. Probably through its elites becoming out of touch. California to a T, through and through.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
I am familiar with gini coefficient...I don’t understand the relevance of the video tho’...if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state. So I am confused why you’d bring that up..unless you support the measures above. When free market forces take over, things will fall into place. Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’. Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous. Milton Friedman was my thesis subject in college. I get Thomas Sowell too. I just don’t understand your stance. Octavia Butler didn’t finish the Parable series. Writer’s block. Maybe there was a reason why..badly plotted. You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently. We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state. I would be for that. Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’. Sure. The violent kind, no one should need in the USA in 2019. Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous. Keeping violence out of society is simply a good idea. You can't have commerce and markets without order. Giving people the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness is a good idea. Everything which is the "fabric of life" should be within the means of everyman and everywoman. I think this should be achievable in the free market. The organizations and forces which dominate society have a practical obligation to provide such things. Historically, it's a good way to make money. Also, the disappearance of true everyman/everywoman activities and goods seems to be associated with dying industries trying to hold on by raising prices. I think you and I would agree that giving stuff away would create more problems than it would solve. That's not what I'm proposing here. Also, saviors are dangerous. The real ones wield power in a more concentrated form than is wise. I just don’t understand your stance. Markets aren't the be-all end-all. They're just a tool. Everyone in business should be biased towards getting ahead by creating delight and avoiding resentment. On one level, that's just good brand management. On another level, the dignity of all levels of society is necessary for a long lasting, healthy society. Powerful people all working together informally and voluntarily towards this end are the hallmark of the healthiest societies. You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently. Making sure large swathes of the public don't feel put upon is something to keep in mind as well. Principles may not be important at all, to minds taken by instincts more deeply rooted than rationality. Like the status calculations of young men and women who decide they no longer have a stake in society. We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion. You seem to be biased towards prioritizing only principles, rationality, and markets. Those are great, but they don't cover everything.
  - 8y ago

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

I am familiar with gini coefficient...I don’t understand the relevance of the video tho’...if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state. So I am confused why you’d bring that up..unless you support the measures above. When free market forces take over, things will fall into place. Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’. Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous. Milton Friedman was my thesis subject in college. I get Thomas Sowell too. I just don’t understand your stance. Octavia Butler didn’t finish the Parable series. Writer’s block. Maybe there was a reason why..badly plotted. You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently. We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion.

stcredzero 8y ago
if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state. I would be for that. Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don’t live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don’t stay the same for ‘thousands of years’. Sure. The violent kind, no one should need in the USA in 2019. Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous. Keeping violence out of society is simply a good idea. You can't have commerce and markets without order. Giving people the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness is a good idea. Everything which is the "fabric of life" should be within the means of everyman and everywoman. I think this should be achievable in the free market. The organizations and forces which dominate society have a practical obligation to provide such things. Historically, it's a good way to make money. Also, the disappearance of true everyman/everywoman activities and goods seems to be associated with dying industries trying to hold on by raising prices. I think you and I would agree that giving stuff away would create more problems than it would solve. That's not what I'm proposing here. Also, saviors are dangerous. The real ones wield power in a more concentrated form than is wise. I just don’t understand your stance. Markets aren't the be-all end-all. They're just a tool. Everyone in business should be biased towards getting ahead by creating delight and avoiding resentment. On one level, that's just good brand management. On another level, the dignity of all levels of society is necessary for a long lasting, healthy society. Powerful people all working together informally and voluntarily towards this end are the hallmark of the healthiest societies. You say: ‘Principles are important’. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently. Making sure large swathes of the public don't feel put upon is something to keep in mind as well. Principles may not be important at all, to minds taken by instincts more deeply rooted than rationality. Like the status calculations of young men and women who decide they no longer have a stake in society. We are not rational animals but we are all ‘rationalising’ creatures. I don’t see the relevance either bring to this discussion. You seem to be biased towards prioritizing only principles, rationality, and markets. Those are great, but they don't cover everything.
- 8y ago