3 ms·

> I wonder how many people could be elevated to comfortable middle class status with all the money hoarded so Jeff Bezos can have over 20 different extravagant

by swalsh 7y ago

> I wonder how many people could be elevated to comfortable middle class status with all the money hoarded so Jeff Bezos can have over 20 different extravagant homes I think this is ultimately the crux of the issue. Without rapid economic growth, the only way to make society rapidly more "fair" is to focus on redistribution. I'm actually not completely against the idea either. I can think of a number of institutions, like education, healthcare, and childcare (pre-k) that make a whole bunch of sense to make more "equitable". But I do believe we need to have a level sense about what is reasonable to expect. It's not ever going to be close to the levels we had in the second half of the twentieth century. If we go at it too aggressively, we're risking a lot.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> not ever going to be close to the levels we had in the second half of the twentieth century Why not? Lack of inequality wasn't down to Bretton Woods, but to taxation and regulation that were the result of trying imperfectly to learn from the The Great Depression and World War 2. It's disassembling all of that which has brought us to another gilded age. We're already seeing a rise in extremism and rejection of politics that are very analogous to the thirties. The cult of Neoliberalism from 1980 on, and its socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor is what is generating the risk.
kiba 7y ago
We have a lot of room of improving everyone's conditions, but we don't due to structural issues.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  The devil is in the details. The problem seems simpler than it is because it's common to view the economy as a static system, like a force of gravity. But the economy isn't like that. Ultimately, people loaning money want to get back more than they gave, and if they can't get that they'll stop loaning money, and everything goes downhill from there until the next thing you see is everyone being worse off than they would be 100 years ago. This is the risk any proposed structural changes need to mitigate.

by swalsh 7y ago

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

> not ever going to be close to the levels we had in the second half of the twentieth century Why not? Lack of inequality wasn't down to Bretton Woods, but to taxation and regulation that were the result of trying imperfectly to learn from the The Great Depression and World War 2. It's disassembling all of that which has brought us to another gilded age. We're already seeing a rise in extremism and rejection of politics that are very analogous to the thirties. The cult of Neoliberalism from 1980 on, and its socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor is what is generating the risk.

kiba 7y ago

We have a lot of room of improving everyone's conditions, but we don't due to structural issues.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
The devil is in the details. The problem seems simpler than it is because it's common to view the economy as a static system, like a force of gravity. But the economy isn't like that. Ultimately, people loaning money want to get back more than they gave, and if they can't get that they'll stop loaning money, and everything goes downhill from there until the next thing you see is everyone being worse off than they would be 100 years ago. This is the risk any proposed structural changes need to mitigate.