4 ms·
You rarely see people on the bottom of the ladder argue that inequality isn't that important. Prosperity doesn't say anything about how the resources are shared
by jahaja 6y ago
You rarely see people on the bottom of the ladder argue that inequality isn't that important. Prosperity doesn't say anything about how the resources are shared, so yes, 1890ths England was surely one of the most prosperous countries of the time, but at the same time children lived in Oliver Twist like misery.
The problem is that it's becoming increasingly clear that Capitalism fails miserably at redistributing resources fairly.
- xupybd 6y agoCapitalism doesn't aim to redistribute resources fairly. It aims to allocate them effectively. Those that find efficient means of production acquire more resources. This cause more effective use of resources available and thus more resources become available for everyone. Yes pure capitalism fails some people and a mix of small amounts of socialism help those in need. But prosperity does far more to help the poor than equality. Extreme inequality is bad
- jahaja 6y agoYou're just parroting free market propaganda and still have the stomach to dismiss the author as an ideolog.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xupybd 6y agoOk so do you have a better system than capitalism? I'm saying that absolute wealth is more important than equality. Do you have a counter to that or a system that can promote prosperity and more even wealth distribution?
- jahaja 6y agoYes, to extend democracy to the economic sphere.