6 ms·

I don't get why lately the trend it to focus in inequality instead of focusing in poverty. I mean, if the % of poverty decreases, then economy is moving in a g

by sdfin 7y ago

I don't get why lately the trend it to focus in inequality instead of focusing in poverty. I mean, if the % of poverty decreases, then economy is moving in a good direction, in spite of inequality, right? Suppose you had one million, and somebody else has one thousand millions, there would be a large gap, but I wouldn't consider it as negative. If there are arguments against what I wrote I would gladly read them and consider them.

pietrovismara 7y ago
Because both inequality and poverty matter. Solving poverty is a matter of decency for all humanity and it would greatly improve our society. Solving inequality is as important, why? Because in a society where greed and profit motive trump any other ethic, we can't have individuals as powerful as states, thanks to the wealth they accumulated, partly, stealing from states. Earning billions and finding ways to not pay any taxes is equivalent to stealing for me.
- zygimantasdev 7y ago
  If you are taxed involuntary - isn't that stealing? Well technically by law it is legal and enforced for everyone, but it still is stealing. For example: if everybody is under the immoral law and some people are better than others at avoiding the immoral law - is it morally okay for those people to avoid that law? Edit: by involuntary I mean if person can't choose. Not talking about businesses
  - pietrovismara 7y ago
    No it is not, for a very obvious reason: you get all the advantages of living in a society. Even just for infrastructure alone. Roads, sewages, electricity, internet. Last but not least, safety and order. Any income you might have developed is built upon this foundations. It is the very minimum that you pay back for it, especially if you have more than most others. The only thing I don't like is that we don't have a choice about it. We are born in nations and we're subjected to their laws, like it or not. But you can still give up everything and not pay taxes...
    - zygimantasdev 7y ago
      I think your point about a choice of taxes is very close to my argument of involuntary taxes. While I agree there are some things that you must contribute to have law and order - there are other things I don't want to subsidize. If my town lacks sidewalks, cars drive too fast and etc. - why should you pay for other towns problems first? Because somebody needs more votes from that other town they get to take my money against my will? Also, for example, I don't like some study programs and I really like some of them. Problem is - I can't choose which ones to subsidize for students. If that's the case - I wouldn't subsidize any of them, but I am forced to do so. Even if I think its harmful. I think this problem arise/will arise in many different places: North vs South Italy, Catalonia vs Spain, young people to carry aging population and etc.
- sdfin 7y ago
  You say that individuals with power may do bad things and states with power do good things. Yes, that can happen. But also there may be individuals with power that do very good things and states with power that do very bad things.
  - pietrovismara 7y ago
    True, but states have rules, and in a democracy we as people determine the rules (in theory). Individuals as powerful as a state on the other hand have no rule. I want to have a say on what our resources are used for, not leave the decision to an individual who by the way has very probably got rich through morally questionable business practices.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I don't get why lately the trend it to focus in inequality instead of focusing in poverty. Because outside of extreme poverty that is rare in the West, relative deprivation seems to be a more significant source of experienced disutility and other social dysfunction than absolute deprivation.
- sdfin 7y ago
  What are the trends of relative deprivation? I know it's not a defined and studied concept, but if the relative deprivation is in a decreasing trend, I believe that it would mean we are in a good direction. Anyway, if the problem is relative deprivation we should focus on that, instead of focusing in inequality. I believe it would be more productive to improve things. Is inequality the "cause" of relative deprivation? I believe there are more important causes, like corruption, for example.
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    See my comment above, but in response to this, doesn't "relative deprivation"=="inequality"?
    - sdfin 7y ago
      Not necessarily, as in the case of a guy who has 800.000 dollars being inequal to another guy with 100.000.000 dollars. edit: I mean, the cause of poverty is not that some people are rich, because if world trends of poverty are decreasing while the rich are getting richer, there isn't a correlation. Of course if some rich people get their riches by corruption or some other harmful activity, yes, that may cause poverty. But I would not say that the existence of rich people in general is the cause of poverty. That would imply thinking about wealth as a fixed size cake, where some have to lose for others to win. But it may be that it's rather like increasing the amount of cakes. Nobody loses if we have more cakes.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      Basically, yes. But, for a longer answer (and an entry to a vastly longer one...) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129
defterGoose 7y ago
I'll agree with your basic point that reduction of poverty is, in some sense, the correct measure to look at. However, the problem with applying your stated attitude to shaping policy is that society has a limited ability to innovate or grow productivity on a finite timescale. In other words, it makes some sense to think of economic productivity as relatively constant (it's unlikely, e.g., that someone will figure out how to conjure up calories and end world hunger next year). On the other side, people are suffering right now. If we agree that reducing this suffering is the correct measure, then we must ask ourselves what steps can be taken right now to lessen it. If we were in an intellectual vacuum, then we could argue all day about the pros and cons of wealth redistribution (and whether or not it is theft to apply such a tool). But what many (including myself) feel to be true, is that now more than ever, a lot of the productive capacity of money is being needlessly accrued by relatively few people who, on average, don't possess the the knowledge or will to apply that capacity to society's problems. Under those conditions, the potential for growth and productivity in the future is needlessly limited. It is one thing to say that the gatekeepers of society's wealth function as a storehouse of capital for future contingencies, but this largely ignores that our global monetary system is primarily a fiat one, and as such, the integrity of the society itself and peoples' trust in the system is of paramount concern. TL;DR The productivity of today's capital is being hindered by accumulation because the long-term benefits of more equitable distribution are philosophically real, but hard to understand.
- sdfin 7y ago
  I agree that it's good to evaluate what's the best thing to do right now to reduce suffering. I don't believe that extreme forms of redistribution work, and we do have redistribution in the form of taxes right now. > now more than ever, a lot of the productive capacity of money is being needlessly accrued by relatively few people who, on average, don't possess the the knowledge or will to apply that capacity to society's problems. Under those conditions, the potential for growth and productivity in the future is needlessly limited. The people who accrue a lot of money is able to do that because either they profit by selling some useful product or service that others desire and buy, or because they invest some land or form of private property they bought or inherited, or because they steal or acquire by illegal means that harm others (like corruption). I don't believe that we should consider equally the rich businessmen who became rich providing something useful to the world, and the corrupts. If the good businessman is punished with taxes or confiscatory laws he would be less able to produce something useful and demanded by society. If the corrupts are punished, everyone wins.
pietrod 7y ago
then let's compare us to monkeys, if we can decide a past point in time, in this case whatever we do it's always good and everybody will be happy! (this could not work XD)
- sdfin 7y ago
  Setting a point in time at any point during the last three decades shows a good trend https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extreme_poverty_1981-2008.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extreme_poverty_1981...
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Inequality is bad because political power is correlated to wealth. As soon as we switch to a political system where Charles Koch has the same political power as the minimum wage janitor working in his office, I will stop fighting economic inequality.
- zygimantasdev 7y ago
  I think your goal is impossible. Even in soviet union that wasn't the case. The best specialists (let's say top surgeons) will always have more influence. If you know that your survivability rate is 50% higher at one surgeon hands than the rest - won't you pay/do whatever you can to survive?
- sdfin 7y ago
  What would be needed to achieve such a thing?

by sdfin 7y ago

pietrovismara 7y ago

Because both inequality and poverty matter. Solving poverty is a matter of decency for all humanity and it would greatly improve our society. Solving inequality is as important, why? Because in a society where greed and profit motive trump any other ethic, we can't have individuals as powerful as states, thanks to the wealth they accumulated, partly, stealing from states. Earning billions and finding ways to not pay any taxes is equivalent to stealing for me.

zygimantasdev 7y ago
If you are taxed involuntary - isn't that stealing? Well technically by law it is legal and enforced for everyone, but it still is stealing. For example: if everybody is under the immoral law and some people are better than others at avoiding the immoral law - is it morally okay for those people to avoid that law? Edit: by involuntary I mean if person can't choose. Not talking about businesses
- pietrovismara 7y ago
  No it is not, for a very obvious reason: you get all the advantages of living in a society. Even just for infrastructure alone. Roads, sewages, electricity, internet. Last but not least, safety and order. Any income you might have developed is built upon this foundations. It is the very minimum that you pay back for it, especially if you have more than most others. The only thing I don't like is that we don't have a choice about it. We are born in nations and we're subjected to their laws, like it or not. But you can still give up everything and not pay taxes...
  - zygimantasdev 7y ago
    I think your point about a choice of taxes is very close to my argument of involuntary taxes. While I agree there are some things that you must contribute to have law and order - there are other things I don't want to subsidize. If my town lacks sidewalks, cars drive too fast and etc. - why should you pay for other towns problems first? Because somebody needs more votes from that other town they get to take my money against my will? Also, for example, I don't like some study programs and I really like some of them. Problem is - I can't choose which ones to subsidize for students. If that's the case - I wouldn't subsidize any of them, but I am forced to do so. Even if I think its harmful. I think this problem arise/will arise in many different places: North vs South Italy, Catalonia vs Spain, young people to carry aging population and etc.
sdfin 7y ago
You say that individuals with power may do bad things and states with power do good things. Yes, that can happen. But also there may be individuals with power that do very good things and states with power that do very bad things.
- pietrovismara 7y ago
  True, but states have rules, and in a democracy we as people determine the rules (in theory). Individuals as powerful as a state on the other hand have no rule. I want to have a say on what our resources are used for, not leave the decision to an individual who by the way has very probably got rich through morally questionable business practices.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> I don't get why lately the trend it to focus in inequality instead of focusing in poverty. Because outside of extreme poverty that is rare in the West, relative deprivation seems to be a more significant source of experienced disutility and other social dysfunction than absolute deprivation.

sdfin 7y ago
What are the trends of relative deprivation? I know it's not a defined and studied concept, but if the relative deprivation is in a decreasing trend, I believe that it would mean we are in a good direction. Anyway, if the problem is relative deprivation we should focus on that, instead of focusing in inequality. I believe it would be more productive to improve things. Is inequality the "cause" of relative deprivation? I believe there are more important causes, like corruption, for example.
- defterGoose 7y ago
  See my comment above, but in response to this, doesn't "relative deprivation"=="inequality"?
  - sdfin 7y ago
    Not necessarily, as in the case of a guy who has 800.000 dollars being inequal to another guy with 100.000.000 dollars. edit: I mean, the cause of poverty is not that some people are rich, because if world trends of poverty are decreasing while the rich are getting richer, there isn't a correlation. Of course if some rich people get their riches by corruption or some other harmful activity, yes, that may cause poverty. But I would not say that the existence of rich people in general is the cause of poverty. That would imply thinking about wealth as a fixed size cake, where some have to lose for others to win. But it may be that it's rather like increasing the amount of cakes. Nobody loses if we have more cakes.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    Basically, yes. But, for a longer answer (and an entry to a vastly longer one...) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638129

defterGoose 7y ago

I'll agree with your basic point that reduction of poverty is, in some sense, the correct measure to look at. However, the problem with applying your stated attitude to shaping policy is that society has a limited ability to innovate or grow productivity on a finite timescale. In other words, it makes some sense to think of economic productivity as relatively constant (it's unlikely, e.g., that someone will figure out how to conjure up calories and end world hunger next year). On the other side, people are suffering right now. If we agree that reducing this suffering is the correct measure, then we must ask ourselves what steps can be taken right now to lessen it. If we were in an intellectual vacuum, then we could argue all day about the pros and cons of wealth redistribution (and whether or not it is theft to apply such a tool). But what many (including myself) feel to be true, is that now more than ever, a lot of the productive capacity of money is being needlessly accrued by relatively few people who, on average, don't possess the the knowledge or will to apply that capacity to society's problems. Under those conditions, the potential for growth and productivity in the future is needlessly limited. It is one thing to say that the gatekeepers of society's wealth function as a storehouse of capital for future contingencies, but this largely ignores that our global monetary system is primarily a fiat one, and as such, the integrity of the society itself and peoples' trust in the system is of paramount concern. TL;DR The productivity of today's capital is being hindered by accumulation because the long-term benefits of more equitable distribution are philosophically real, but hard to understand.

sdfin 7y ago
I agree that it's good to evaluate what's the best thing to do right now to reduce suffering. I don't believe that extreme forms of redistribution work, and we do have redistribution in the form of taxes right now. > now more than ever, a lot of the productive capacity of money is being needlessly accrued by relatively few people who, on average, don't possess the the knowledge or will to apply that capacity to society's problems. Under those conditions, the potential for growth and productivity in the future is needlessly limited. The people who accrue a lot of money is able to do that because either they profit by selling some useful product or service that others desire and buy, or because they invest some land or form of private property they bought or inherited, or because they steal or acquire by illegal means that harm others (like corruption). I don't believe that we should consider equally the rich businessmen who became rich providing something useful to the world, and the corrupts. If the good businessman is punished with taxes or confiscatory laws he would be less able to produce something useful and demanded by society. If the corrupts are punished, everyone wins.

pietrod 7y ago

then let's compare us to monkeys, if we can decide a past point in time, in this case whatever we do it's always good and everybody will be happy! (this could not work XD)

sdfin 7y ago
Setting a point in time at any point during the last three decades shows a good trend https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extreme_poverty_1981-2008.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extreme_poverty_1981...

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

Inequality is bad because political power is correlated to wealth. As soon as we switch to a political system where Charles Koch has the same political power as the minimum wage janitor working in his office, I will stop fighting economic inequality.

zygimantasdev 7y ago
I think your goal is impossible. Even in soviet union that wasn't the case. The best specialists (let's say top surgeons) will always have more influence. If you know that your survivability rate is 50% higher at one surgeon hands than the rest - won't you pay/do whatever you can to survive?
sdfin 7y ago
What would be needed to achieve such a thing?