4 ms·
People always try to tie income inequality things like standard of living and centralization of power. Why not attempt to measure those things directly? Income
by jonfw 7y ago
People always try to tie income inequality things like standard of living and centralization of power. Why not attempt to measure those things directly? Income inequality may be a useful factor in an attempt to quantify those things (or it may not)- but it certainly isn't a measure in itself.
- lmilcin 7y agoCentralization of power might still be good for wealth (at least temporarily). Centralization of power improves (potential) competitiveness through ability to make and implement decisions. For example, China was able to progress very quickly from a very poor to superpower by implementing unpopular changes, breaking what we think as "human rights", etc. One could say that "on average" Chinese people are better off having strong central government for the past half century than if they had ineffective democracy. Again, "on average" Chinese family might not care that their communications are being monitored, that they are being lied to or that they have no rights. What they might care is that they have electricity, food, education and work. The democracy is not a solution for fast short term progress and wealth. Democracy was meant to maximize freedom and the chance to keep it in a long run. So it all depends on what you value. Freedom seems to always cost and if society is not ready to pay a little bit for it it might just end.