3 ms·

This fact isn't surprising. The US has always had a culture where individualism and libertarianism combine in ways that make it almost impossible to flatten wea

This fact isn't surprising. The US has always had a culture where individualism and libertarianism combine in ways that make it almost impossible to flatten wealth distribution to any significant extent. Countries where wealth is more evenly distributed have cultures with a more socialist bent. 'Socialism' is a dirty word in US culture, more so than in any other country that I know of. Thus, I doubt very much that this imbalance can be addressed anytime soon as individualism in US culture is so ingrained that conditions for change just aren't there.

jseban 5y ago
Yeah and this inequality also comes with a lot of benefits, who knows how much of that wealth would even exist in the first place if you didn't have that motivation. I mean we've seen what happens in more equal socialist countries, I think these comparisons are pretty childish actually and seems to serve mostly to agitate. You'd have to consider many different aspect of this to create a good understanding to what this is good for vs bad. And you can easily spin this around to say something like: the ultra rich is now only 0.1% of the population, compared to 5% of the population before, the rich are getting fewer, great! The big question is, if the middle, and lower class have also gotten more, in absolute terms. If everyone wins, who cares if a couple of individuals somewhere have an underground garage with 12 sports car, I couldn't care less.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  "If everyone wins, who cares if a couple of individuals somewhere have an underground garage with 12 sports car, I couldn't care less." The point the article was making was the enormous size of the ratio/disparity (which is more than just a couple). Whether one agrees with the situation or not depends on one's political compass - and I've no comment on that.
- m_ke 5y ago
  I’d argue that geopolitics have much more to do with the prosperity in the US than the economic system. It helps to be the largest English speaking nation and separated by two large bodies of water from any possible threat.

jseban 5y ago

Yeah and this inequality also comes with a lot of benefits, who knows how much of that wealth would even exist in the first place if you didn't have that motivation. I mean we've seen what happens in more equal socialist countries, I think these comparisons are pretty childish actually and seems to serve mostly to agitate. You'd have to consider many different aspect of this to create a good understanding to what this is good for vs bad. And you can easily spin this around to say something like: the ultra rich is now only 0.1% of the population, compared to 5% of the population before, the rich are getting fewer, great! The big question is, if the middle, and lower class have also gotten more, in absolute terms. If everyone wins, who cares if a couple of individuals somewhere have an underground garage with 12 sports car, I couldn't care less.

hilbert42 5y ago
"If everyone wins, who cares if a couple of individuals somewhere have an underground garage with 12 sports car, I couldn't care less." The point the article was making was the enormous size of the ratio/disparity (which is more than just a couple). Whether one agrees with the situation or not depends on one's political compass - and I've no comment on that.
m_ke 5y ago
I’d argue that geopolitics have much more to do with the prosperity in the US than the economic system. It helps to be the largest English speaking nation and separated by two large bodies of water from any possible threat.