3 ms·

First off, you’re wrong. “The poorest people on the planet” in no way have access to “more resources than the greatest king had 500 years ago”. It’s self-eviden

First off, you’re wrong. “The poorest people on the planet” in no way have access to “more resources than the greatest king had 500 years ago”. It’s self-evidently nonsense. Second, massive inequality between rich and poor is a signal that something has gone horribly wrong with the distribution of wealth generated by society. That does not mean that “all of us need to be poor”. It does indicate that the rewards of civilisation have been unevenly distributed.

logicchains 7y ago
>Second, massive inequality between rich and poor is a signal that something has gone horribly wrong with the distribution of wealth generated by society. That does not mean that “all of us need to be poor”. It does indicate that the rewards of civilisation have been unevenly distributed. What is the "right" distribution then? Given that wealth invested will grow exponentially, it seems pretty self-evident that people who invest wealth will end up with way more wealth then people who don't. Even in a very simple model where half the population invests 30% of their savings and the other invests 10%, over a few decades the former will end up massively wealthier than the latter. Similarly, if both halves invest the same amount but one is able to find investments with 10% return and the other with 2% return, the former will end up way wealthier. What's unnatural about this? Hence if we assume people have different degrees of preference for and competence at investing (there's no reason to assume these traits don't vary), we'd expect that even if everyone started from the same position some would end up way wealthier than others.
- scroot 7y ago
  Read Piketty
- mcguire 7y ago
  Fortunately, of course, excessive wealth and power disparities are reset periodically by major wars (WWI/2, the French Revolution, the Thirty Years War,...) and other civilizational upheavals (out on a limb, but the collapse of the Roman Empire). Of course, many people regard that sort of thing as something to avoid.
sokoloff 7y ago
> Second, massive inequality between rich and poor is a signal that something has gone horribly wrong with the distribution of wealth generated by society. Is it? It seems to me like a world where a small group of people can improve the lives of a wide swath of the population (as measured and evidenced by that wide swath of people willingly giving them money in exchange for goods/services), that it’s fairly natural and even desirable for those creators of value to retain some of it for themselves. Perhaps the relatively new capability of efficient global transportation and widespread Internet communication allows small groups to improve the lives of even larger groups than they could 50, 100, or 250 years ago. We should celebrate that lives are improved broadly rather than excoriating those who are providing the improvements in exchange for money.
- scroot 7y ago
  What are the improvements? Who is providing them and how?
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    When I give money to a merchant, I do so because they have improved my life. Whether it’s a gallon of gas, a gallon of milk, a car, a month of cell phone service, doesn’t matter.

logicchains 7y ago

>Second, massive inequality between rich and poor is a signal that something has gone horribly wrong with the distribution of wealth generated by society. That does not mean that “all of us need to be poor”. It does indicate that the rewards of civilisation have been unevenly distributed. What is the "right" distribution then? Given that wealth invested will grow exponentially, it seems pretty self-evident that people who invest wealth will end up with way more wealth then people who don't. Even in a very simple model where half the population invests 30% of their savings and the other invests 10%, over a few decades the former will end up massively wealthier than the latter. Similarly, if both halves invest the same amount but one is able to find investments with 10% return and the other with 2% return, the former will end up way wealthier. What's unnatural about this? Hence if we assume people have different degrees of preference for and competence at investing (there's no reason to assume these traits don't vary), we'd expect that even if everyone started from the same position some would end up way wealthier than others.

scroot 7y ago
Read Piketty
mcguire 7y ago
Fortunately, of course, excessive wealth and power disparities are reset periodically by major wars (WWI/2, the French Revolution, the Thirty Years War,...) and other civilizational upheavals (out on a limb, but the collapse of the Roman Empire). Of course, many people regard that sort of thing as something to avoid.

sokoloff 7y ago

> Second, massive inequality between rich and poor is a signal that something has gone horribly wrong with the distribution of wealth generated by society. Is it? It seems to me like a world where a small group of people can improve the lives of a wide swath of the population (as measured and evidenced by that wide swath of people willingly giving them money in exchange for goods/services), that it’s fairly natural and even desirable for those creators of value to retain some of it for themselves. Perhaps the relatively new capability of efficient global transportation and widespread Internet communication allows small groups to improve the lives of even larger groups than they could 50, 100, or 250 years ago. We should celebrate that lives are improved broadly rather than excoriating those who are providing the improvements in exchange for money.

scroot 7y ago
What are the improvements? Who is providing them and how?
- sokoloff 7y ago
  When I give money to a merchant, I do so because they have improved my life. Whether it’s a gallon of gas, a gallon of milk, a car, a month of cell phone service, doesn’t matter.