5 ms·

> That didn't seem like the point you were making, what you wrong seemed to imply some form of the current system has existed forever. My meaning was very plai

> That didn't seem like the point you were making, what you wrong seemed to imply some form of the current system has existed forever. My meaning was very plain. I said many people would be unconvinced that anything could be done to achieve equality. I then stated they could point to thousands of years of human life (which, as you correctly stated, contained many economic systems). If you put both points together, you'd see that I was saying essentially that 'no human system tried has achieved equality', so many people would believe that there are few changes we can make to ours to achieve this goal. I'm going to expound on this idea more. Please consider everything I say before jumping to conclusions this time. > Sure. But some produce a hell of a lot more than others. And it's still worth searching for new materials that produce less friction so that they can be used in applications where friction is a detriment. Correct. But there's more than one knob. Some systems produce little inequality, but lots of destitution. Others produce lots of inequality but little destitution. By all objective metrics, ours produces little destitution, and while it produces inequality, it is a different form of inequality than many other systems. For example, marxism and communism in the forms tried produce more equality, but utter destitution for large swaths of the population (it's a race to the bottom). Our system of free markets, even in its heavily corrupt form, produces inequality, certainly, but little destitution, by all objective metrics. Moreover, of the inequality we create, it is a shifting inequality. Studies show that family fortunes in the United States do not form dynasties as they do in other economic systems (like monarchist mercantilism, for example). Most family wealth dissipates by the third or fourth generation. If some inequality that ends up being redistributed is the price we pay for less destitution, then I don't see why equality ought to be prized. > Some economic systems produce a lot more inequality and environmental degredation than others. Our current system has produced a lot more than most. And a lot of the proposals on the table would almost certainly produce less than our current system does. Okay, and as I said, simply optimizing for 'equality' and 'environment degradation' would not lead to a good economic system. There are other goals you're completely ignoring. WE can create a system that's perfectly equal and great for the environment, but leaves everyone destitute. For me, there's a hierarchy of needs here. First, destitution must end, then we can talk about equality. But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends

dbingham 5y ago
> My meaning was very plain. Your meaning was not plain, you wrote a few very broad sentences and in your clarifications it seems you were talking about a single problem - equality. The original post was outlining many problems, inequality being one of them and the systems being proposed potentially address many problems. But that's fine, such is the nature of dialog over text. > Studies show that family fortunes in the United States do not form dynasties as they do in other economic systems (like monarchist mercantilism, for example). Most family wealth dissipates by the third or fourth generation This is likely to be an outdated statistic at best. If you go back three or four genenerations, you will find yourself passing through a time when the US had very high inheritance taxes and a 90% top marginal tax rate. That period of time did likely prevent the formation of dynasties across it. However, those policies have since been repealed and current studies show very low social mobility and a significant increase in dynastic formation. [1, 2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/american-dream-broken-upward-mobility-us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/americ... [2] https://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Billionaire-Bonanza-2018-Report-October-2018.pdf https://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Billionair... > Some systems produce little inequality, but lots of destitution. Others produce lots of inequality but little destitution. If you're just measuring destitution and inequality, then you're getting a very narrow picture. You can't leave out things like environmental degradation from your calculation. The environmental degradation - in climate change - threatens to upend what gains there have been made in destitution and the current system is completely failing to respond appropriately to the threat. So the great likelihood is that if we stay with the same system on the same trendline, there's a cliff coming in our near future. > For me, there's a hierarchy of needs here. First, destitution must end, then we can talk about equality. But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends. Saying "first destitution" must end before we consider any refactors of the current system makes very little sense. There are other options on the table than state socialism or returning to mercantalism. Systems that have the potential to increase equality, decrease environemntal degredation, and decrease destitution. All at the same time. Systems that haven't been tried in macro yet, but are working just fine in micro - for example the move to universal worker cooperatives funded by credit unions and crowd sourcing that I propose. And that's just one of many proposed possibilities. Those doing the work of proposing alternatives are absolutely including things like destitution in their calculations. Throwing your hands up and saying "we can't do better than this" frankly runs counter to the very mindset that this website is supposed to represent. We can always do better.

dbingham 5y ago

> My meaning was very plain. Your meaning was not plain, you wrote a few very broad sentences and in your clarifications it seems you were talking about a single problem - equality. The original post was outlining many problems, inequality being one of them and the systems being proposed potentially address many problems. But that's fine, such is the nature of dialog over text. > Studies show that family fortunes in the United States do not form dynasties as they do in other economic systems (like monarchist mercantilism, for example). Most family wealth dissipates by the third or fourth generation This is likely to be an outdated statistic at best. If you go back three or four genenerations, you will find yourself passing through a time when the US had very high inheritance taxes and a 90% top marginal tax rate. That period of time did likely prevent the formation of dynasties across it. However, those policies have since been repealed and current studies show very low social mobility and a significant increase in dynastic formation. [1, 2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/american-dream-broken-upward-mobility-us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/americ... [2] https://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Billionaire-Bonanza-2018-Report-October-2018.pdf https://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Billionair... > Some systems produce little inequality, but lots of destitution. Others produce lots of inequality but little destitution. If you're just measuring destitution and inequality, then you're getting a very narrow picture. You can't leave out things like environmental degradation from your calculation. The environmental degradation - in climate change - threatens to upend what gains there have been made in destitution and the current system is completely failing to respond appropriately to the threat. So the great likelihood is that if we stay with the same system on the same trendline, there's a cliff coming in our near future. > For me, there's a hierarchy of needs here. First, destitution must end, then we can talk about equality. But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends. Saying "first destitution" must end before we consider any refactors of the current system makes very little sense. There are other options on the table than state socialism or returning to mercantalism. Systems that have the potential to increase equality, decrease environemntal degredation, and decrease destitution. All at the same time. Systems that haven't been tried in macro yet, but are working just fine in micro - for example the move to universal worker cooperatives funded by credit unions and crowd sourcing that I propose. And that's just one of many proposed possibilities. Those doing the work of proposing alternatives are absolutely including things like destitution in their calculations. Throwing your hands up and saying "we can't do better than this" frankly runs counter to the very mindset that this website is supposed to represent. We can always do better.