4 ms·
That’s an interesting though. Serious question: how do you quantify inequalities that represents a systemic risk versus ones that do not? I ask because perfect
by burlesona 7y ago
That’s an interesting though. Serious question: how do you quantify inequalities that represents a systemic risk versus ones that do not?
I ask because perfectly equal wealth distribution or maybe even desirable (see many attempts at communism ending badly). Further, there are parts of the world where people have very different cultures and “standards of living” and are happy, which is not dangerous even as it is not “equal.”
So how do you best quantify and anticipate which “infrastructure differences” are fine and maybe even locally optimal, versus which ones are going to lead to harm?
- bsanr2 7y agoAsk people what they want, and then listen when they tell you? Therein lies another problem: the perceived cost of improvements is modified by the perceptions of "deservedness" on the part of the people paying. Compare post-WWII to post-WOT investment. The Marshall Plan et al. were correctly perceived as being less expensive than the alternative of letting wounds fester and courting another war, but I'd argue that this relatively clear-eyed approach was influenced by who the investment was going to (Westerners, European, white people) and what it was to be used for (returning Europe to its former glory after utter destruction). There has been no talk of that kind of investment in Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan/Libya, whatever their people may desire.