5 ms·
I think a better way to put it is that nobody should have a billion dollars more than another person. The wealth isn't the problem if it's distributed evenly. T
by yogthos 7y ago
I think a better way to put it is that nobody should have a billion dollars more than another person. The wealth isn't the problem if it's distributed evenly. The problem has always been inequality. It would be a fantastic world where everyone could do anything they wanted and have as much agency over their lives as possible.
- zozbot234 7y ago> The wealth isn't the problem if it's distributed evenly. Isn't that what these billionaires are doing? Giving their money away. The more billionaires donate, the closer we get to your world where everyone has as much agency over their lives as possible. (Including the donors, of course.)
- ilikehurdles 7y agoAre they? Is wealth inequality decreasing? Those are rhetorical questions, of course. The answers are no, and no. If billionaires overall do tend to donate significant portions of their wealth, then the fact that wealth inequality is increasing in spite of that practice is hard evidence that individual charity is an ineffective means of lifting people out of poverty. If the converse is true -- that they aren't donating their wealth -- then that too suggests that something like a state is necessary to force their hand.
- zozbot234 7y agoIn all seriousness, the way wealth inequality is measured wouldn't tell you that in the first place. You'd have to look at consumption inequality, which would include stuff like Larry Ellison's yachts (on the "high inequality" side) and perhaps poor people's final consumption resulting from these donations (on the "low inequality" side).
- ilikehurdles 7y agoI never considered this as a potential measure, but it would be really good to track. Is this something you came up with or has there been any other work done to explore this notion of consumption equality?