3 ms·

> Nobody has ever succeeded in having a rich economy without inequality, though many countries have tried it. Nobody has built a CPU that draws zero power, nor

> Nobody has ever succeeded in having a rich economy without inequality, though many countries have tried it. Nobody has built a CPU that draws zero power, nor does anyone believe we can, yet we still we dump billions of dollars every year into R&D to reduce their power consumption. My point is, even though the ideal of "no inequality" is unattainable, it doesn't mean we should give up on trying to reduce it in sensible, measured ways. Things like universal health care, affordable housing and liveable minimum wages don't just improve life for the poor - they make society safer for the wealthy too (through property crime reduction, less access to drugs for children, not stepping in human feces etc. etc.).

WalterBright 5y ago
That conflates two very different things. One is the absolute state of the poor. The other is the difference between the poor and the wealthy. Improving the state of the poor does not imply it is necessary to prevent others from doing much better. Just like if your goal is to decrease auto travel times from Seattle to LA, removing air travel is not the answer.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >Improving the state of the poor does not imply it is necessary to prevent others from doing much better. I never said it does. I was just saying that providing a minimum standard of living for the poor, at the expense of the rich (through increased taxes for health care, lowered property portfolio values for affordable housing, and increased wage expenditures for a liveable minimum wage) is a noble goal to pursue - arguably more noble than reusable rockets. The fact that you can't eliminate economic equality doesn't mean you should make no effort to reduce its harm.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > I never said it does. When you frame the problem as "inequality", you are saying it does.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      I'm literally not. You're twisting my words and then repeatedly telling me I'm saying what you're accusing me of.

WalterBright 5y ago

That conflates two very different things. One is the absolute state of the poor. The other is the difference between the poor and the wealthy. Improving the state of the poor does not imply it is necessary to prevent others from doing much better. Just like if your goal is to decrease auto travel times from Seattle to LA, removing air travel is not the answer.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>Improving the state of the poor does not imply it is necessary to prevent others from doing much better. I never said it does. I was just saying that providing a minimum standard of living for the poor, at the expense of the rich (through increased taxes for health care, lowered property portfolio values for affordable housing, and increased wage expenditures for a liveable minimum wage) is a noble goal to pursue - arguably more noble than reusable rockets. The fact that you can't eliminate economic equality doesn't mean you should make no effort to reduce its harm.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > I never said it does. When you frame the problem as "inequality", you are saying it does.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    I'm literally not. You're twisting my words and then repeatedly telling me I'm saying what you're accusing me of.