4 ms·
Sorry, I picked the wrong word. If labour is a large part of total costs that's superior to it going to a single person outside the city c.p. etc. etc.
by scarejunba 7y ago
Sorry, I picked the wrong word. If labour is a large part of total costs that's superior to it going to a single person outside the city c.p. etc. etc.
- squirrelicus 7y agoThat's not obviously true by itself without some underlying unspoken premises we probably do not share. I reject mercantilistic views of economy. They belong in the 1600s where they died.
- scarejunba 7y agoYeah, you know, I'm not really convinced myself to be honest. Obviously you want to take advantage of comparative advantage, etc. but is a more prosperous city one which has a less unequal income or wealth or does optimizing for top-line wealth just create everything else along the way? I don't really know. I'm pretty comfortable abandoning the view. It wasn't built on a strong basis.
- squirrelicus 7y agoIncome inequality is weakly correlated with everything. It seems to be a necessary consequence of both the most and least prosperous societies. Honestly, income inequality is a red herring of left politics and public schooling. If the most prosperous societies have high income inequality, then the question must be asked: does it matter? Unless you want to design a utopia. That goes swimmingly every time, I promise. Edit: If income inequality is a consequence of freedom, it's a very, very tiny price to pay. Don't optimize for the economy. Optimize for freedom. Empirically, that's how you create prosperity.