3 ms·
> Wealth is not zero sum But what relative wealth buys - a safer, more comfortable position in society - definitely is.
by smallnamespace 7y ago
> Wealth is not zero sum
But what relative wealth buys - a safer, more comfortable position in society - definitely is.
- ska 7y agoI don't think that is quite right. Consider the difference between a society with extremely uneven wealth distribution, such that only a tiny percentage felt safe an comfortable. It's easy to imagine a more even wealth distribution changing that for a large percentage of people. There is a tautological zero-sum ordering in relative wealth, but it's not clear that correlates to anything meaningful to vast majority of people.
- temp-dude-87844 7y agoA higher level of relative wealth unlocks an advantage in the allocation of scarce resources like land and housing within a particular locale, which is meaningful to lots of people.
- ska 7y agoThe point is it doesn’t for many people at all if the distribution is uneven enough, I.e. distribution matters. I’m not saying it’s not important, I’m saying it’s not obviously zero sum. If it was, any marginal change for one person would have impact for another. With an uneven enough distribution I could lose relative in an amount that actually has no impact for me, but could have utility going to you, say. Bear in mind the criteria was “safe and comfortable”, not “able to outbid you on a property”
- bittercynic 7y agoI don't think it's so clear cut. Maybe relative poverty can only be shifted around, but if you reduce absolute poverty that seems pretty clearly positive-sum.