4 ms·
we are way past 'some' inequality. and a lot of that capital sits in places where it doesn't do much to stimulate the economy. then there are the vast swaths of
by pksebben 6y ago
we are way past 'some' inequality. and a lot of that capital sits in places where it doesn't do much to stimulate the economy. then there are the vast swaths of the economy that aren't actually productive or actively detrimental (here's looking at you, financial services, payday lenders, and fossil fuels). further, more inequality means more economic capture (private interests in control of regulation), which decreases our ability to deal with those harms as a society. then you have folks like the koch bros. I like musk as much as the next guy, but I question whether we're at a net positive.
- jlokier 6y agoI think it's not a one-dimensional slider, with 'too much' inequality at one end, and 'not enough' at the other end. I think it has more facets than that, so that it's still possible for everyone to have a decent quality of life (in as much as wealth can help with that), while at the same time, allowing those "big ticket" explorations by a lucky minority of people. I agree though, with questioning whether we are currently at a net positive. What I described above is more like a Star Trek utopia. Maybe possible, certainly not happening at the moment.