4 ms·

Thank you I'll take a look. Again I'm not pointing at Bezos, he contributed a lot of great innovation to society and I'm a big user of Amazon services, I merel

Thank you I'll take a look. Again I'm not pointing at Bezos, he contributed a lot of great innovation to society and I'm a big user of Amazon services, I merely pointing out that things are really out of balance. And this inequality trend was bad before Corona and it just got way worst. So something seems fundamentally broken.

RhysU 6y ago
Throughout most of human history wealth/power has been wildly skewed into a small number of hands. The historical anomaly is that equality today has become pervasive to the point that we find inequality to be noteworthy. Current trends may be reversion to the historical mean without anything being fundamentally broken. It's been a hell of a good few centuries for much of humanity. We should keep it up, of course, but a reversion is normal in a dynamic system with feedback even when an upward trend is "sticking".
- aogaili 6y ago
  That is an interesting perspective. But my understanding that that human society were mostly hunter gatherers, with little resources to speak of and there is no concept of capital ownership and accumulation since there is nothing material to accumulate, it is only after the agricultural revolution (ownership of land and slaves) and industrial revolution (ownership of machines and oil) and information revolution (ownership of data) that capitalist started accumulating and owning more and more resources. Therefore, I really don't think capital accumulation is the natural order of things, just as fat accumulation in today's carbs rich society is not what the human body is designed for. I understand your perspective, but I think, and with all respect, it is defeatist mindset. There is sure a better modern economical systems specially with the improvements in human capability to make decisions using AI and modern technology.
  - RhysU 6y ago
    Kings and pharaohs accumulated capital even if they didn't use the word. We're something like 10,000 years into amassing resources at scale in the hands of the few. This growth coincides with states, incidentally, and is the subject of the very cool book https://www.amazon.com/Against-Grain-History-Earliest-States/dp/0300182910 https://www.amazon.com/Against-Grain-History-Earliest-States.... That book combined with https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/022647822X https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/022647822X (as a state, like a dog, must compete in an ecological niche) and an archeology professor that liked to point out that "progress" is a recent Western invention (vs recorded history) inform my perspective here. I am not saying that we shouldn't strive for better, just that I don't see a fairly short reversal, on the timescale of a lifetime, as a compelling reason to scrap the approaches that collectively have brought us this far.
    - aogaili 6y ago
      I agree, I also don't see fairly short reversal either, but I do see a future possibility. I think I get your point now, you're saying that the current inequality existed since humans started accumulating resources (age of kings and pharaohs) and the strive for more economically equal societies is a very recent goal. Where I think we differ though, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you seem to implicitly imply that the current inequality is the natural order of things, given it's prevalence in modern human history. However I think it is the opposite, in that it is a recent trend, yes, 10k years is recent relative to 300K+ years of humanity, and there is nothing really natural about it, it is a byproduct of an aging human created socioeconomic systems, and not some physical law of nature, and it could and should be improved, that I think is the critical task of modern economists (and I'd love to read some books on that topic if any). I'll start reading the suggested books, I enjoyed the argument you presented because it puts the current inequality in the larger historical context.
      - RhysU 6y ago
        You are spot on in where we differ. I take only the 10,000 year historical view because I see the rise of states as a massive regime shift in human society. I don't think humans will go pre-state ever again. I can see us defeating death well before we defeat taxes. Taxes imply some power concentration which is equivalent to wealth concentration and therefore the existence of material power/wealth inequality. I don't have any books to suggest on modern economics. I would gladly take any recommendations that you have.
        aogaili 6y ago
        That is a very good point as well, I'm now onboard with your perspective, I think it useful way to look at the current inequality trend. Let me try to rephrase your points (and correct me if I'm wrong): 1. The establishment of the state, in its most primitive form around 10k years ago, mark a significant evolution in humanity history and could be considered the starting point of the concentration of power and by extension economical resources, thus the birth of the capitalist. (This was a good takeaway for me). 2. Given the long history of this economical structure and inequality; the concentration of resources in the hands of few, one could conclude: a) the current trend toward equality is recent and modern attempts (I'm onboard with this as well now) b) the reversal of the inequality will not be easy in the short-term, it is built-in with the state which is here to stay. (I agree with this statement as well) However, what I'm thinking now, is why some modern societies/states (like in europe) seem to be way more economically balanced than others (say the US)? doesn't that weaken point 2.b? are they developing better economical systems? What do you think?

RhysU 6y ago

Throughout most of human history wealth/power has been wildly skewed into a small number of hands. The historical anomaly is that equality today has become pervasive to the point that we find inequality to be noteworthy. Current trends may be reversion to the historical mean without anything being fundamentally broken. It's been a hell of a good few centuries for much of humanity. We should keep it up, of course, but a reversion is normal in a dynamic system with feedback even when an upward trend is "sticking".

aogaili 6y ago
That is an interesting perspective. But my understanding that that human society were mostly hunter gatherers, with little resources to speak of and there is no concept of capital ownership and accumulation since there is nothing material to accumulate, it is only after the agricultural revolution (ownership of land and slaves) and industrial revolution (ownership of machines and oil) and information revolution (ownership of data) that capitalist started accumulating and owning more and more resources. Therefore, I really don't think capital accumulation is the natural order of things, just as fat accumulation in today's carbs rich society is not what the human body is designed for. I understand your perspective, but I think, and with all respect, it is defeatist mindset. There is sure a better modern economical systems specially with the improvements in human capability to make decisions using AI and modern technology.
- RhysU 6y ago
  Kings and pharaohs accumulated capital even if they didn't use the word. We're something like 10,000 years into amassing resources at scale in the hands of the few. This growth coincides with states, incidentally, and is the subject of the very cool book https://www.amazon.com/Against-Grain-History-Earliest-States/dp/0300182910 https://www.amazon.com/Against-Grain-History-Earliest-States.... That book combined with https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/022647822X https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/022647822X (as a state, like a dog, must compete in an ecological niche) and an archeology professor that liked to point out that "progress" is a recent Western invention (vs recorded history) inform my perspective here. I am not saying that we shouldn't strive for better, just that I don't see a fairly short reversal, on the timescale of a lifetime, as a compelling reason to scrap the approaches that collectively have brought us this far.
  - aogaili 6y ago
    I agree, I also don't see fairly short reversal either, but I do see a future possibility. I think I get your point now, you're saying that the current inequality existed since humans started accumulating resources (age of kings and pharaohs) and the strive for more economically equal societies is a very recent goal. Where I think we differ though, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you seem to implicitly imply that the current inequality is the natural order of things, given it's prevalence in modern human history. However I think it is the opposite, in that it is a recent trend, yes, 10k years is recent relative to 300K+ years of humanity, and there is nothing really natural about it, it is a byproduct of an aging human created socioeconomic systems, and not some physical law of nature, and it could and should be improved, that I think is the critical task of modern economists (and I'd love to read some books on that topic if any). I'll start reading the suggested books, I enjoyed the argument you presented because it puts the current inequality in the larger historical context.
    - RhysU 6y ago
      You are spot on in where we differ. I take only the 10,000 year historical view because I see the rise of states as a massive regime shift in human society. I don't think humans will go pre-state ever again. I can see us defeating death well before we defeat taxes. Taxes imply some power concentration which is equivalent to wealth concentration and therefore the existence of material power/wealth inequality. I don't have any books to suggest on modern economics. I would gladly take any recommendations that you have.
      - aogaili 6y ago
        That is a very good point as well, I'm now onboard with your perspective, I think it useful way to look at the current inequality trend. Let me try to rephrase your points (and correct me if I'm wrong): 1. The establishment of the state, in its most primitive form around 10k years ago, mark a significant evolution in humanity history and could be considered the starting point of the concentration of power and by extension economical resources, thus the birth of the capitalist. (This was a good takeaway for me). 2. Given the long history of this economical structure and inequality; the concentration of resources in the hands of few, one could conclude: a) the current trend toward equality is recent and modern attempts (I'm onboard with this as well now) b) the reversal of the inequality will not be easy in the short-term, it is built-in with the state which is here to stay. (I agree with this statement as well) However, what I'm thinking now, is why some modern societies/states (like in europe) seem to be way more economically balanced than others (say the US)? doesn't that weaken point 2.b? are they developing better economical systems? What do you think?