5 ms·
"The problem is you can't really run an economic system where only a very few percent of people take all the gains, at least not one that is socially stable or
by teekert 8y ago
"The problem is you can't really run an economic system where only a very few percent of people take all the gains, at least not one that is socially stable or resembles liberal free market capitalism of the past 100 years. "
I agree partly, you can run it but it has to be social. To put it very blunt and anti-social, the rich will have want to buy off being robbed by the poor, or build very high fences around their lives, in almost all aspects. In other words, if this continues: revolution and unpredictability.
I used to love (and still do, but we're growing apart) Ayn Rand but I think this is something she never predicted. Rational, smart people, willing to work but somehow ending up at the wrong side of the fence. The rich becoming the looters, disrespecting rights of the "poor".
- specialist 8y agoI'd rather we argued about outcomes. I'm okay with a Gini coefficient between 0.30 - 0.35. In other words, somewhere between Germany & Australia. The USA is currently 0.45 and climbing. Not good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg I really don't care how we accomplish it. Radical cashectomies, UBI & Medicare for All, Warren's taxation of equity (eg %3/yr for > $1b), Green New Deal. Whatever works.