3 ms·

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

by 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
  That's a nice summary and better said than I did it. I don't claim the state is an evolution, just different and impossible to undo once the concept is brought into existence. Think nuclear technology. Nuclear can't be undone either, at least in the knowledge sense and someone striving for weaponry. (No claims on nuclear as good or bad.) European examples do not weaken 2.b. There are still large wealth disparities to be found. For example, don't mix up income equality for wealth equality when considering Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Sweden I don't know enough to make claims about European economic setups.
  - aogaili 6y ago
    "For example, don't mix up income equality for wealth equality when considering Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Sweden" Another good point. I think this is sufficient for me to adopt your view point. Thanks for this discussion, I learnt something new about economic inequality.

by RhysU 6y ago

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
That's a nice summary and better said than I did it. I don't claim the state is an evolution, just different and impossible to undo once the concept is brought into existence. Think nuclear technology. Nuclear can't be undone either, at least in the knowledge sense and someone striving for weaponry. (No claims on nuclear as good or bad.) European examples do not weaken 2.b. There are still large wealth disparities to be found. For example, don't mix up income equality for wealth equality when considering Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Sweden I don't know enough to make claims about European economic setups.
- aogaili 6y ago
  "For example, don't mix up income equality for wealth equality when considering Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_Sweden" Another good point. I think this is sufficient for me to adopt your view point. Thanks for this discussion, I learnt something new about economic inequality.