4 ms·

Absolutely. Piketty showed that wealth inequality peaked right before WWI and was very low in the 60/70s. The amount of wealth between these two periods does no

Absolutely. Piketty showed that wealth inequality peaked right before WWI and was very low in the 60/70s. The amount of wealth between these two periods does not even compare.

rbanffy 5y ago
Could the low inequality be a cause for rapid wealth expansion?
- leto_ii 5y ago
  Personally I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. I strongly suspect less inequality is positively correlated with a host of beneficial outcomes (more access to education and healthcare, better quality if life etc.) which can in turn lead to a virtuous cycle that would in turn increase wealth.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  It's probably not the only cause, but more wealth for the poor people means people more apt to contribute to the society. Compare one billionaire buying a mega yacht and 10,000 people buying their first car, in both cases you've created say $200M in direct GDP, but in the later case you have 10,000 people more mobile to get a job or consume other goods or services.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  I think the wealth increase is more easily explained by rebuilding everything we just finished blowing up, exploiting all the technological gains we made while getting better at blowing things up and using the disruption/reset as a means to achieve greater local economic maximums (e.g. historical rent seekers kicked out and things are free to become more efficient and mutually beneficial in the time it takes new ones to establish).
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
We have to thank socialism and communism for reducing wealth i equality in western Europe and in the US. But no, make no mistake, NOT because they are good, but because they're so disastrously bad, as was demonstrated by the USSR, that western elites did a lot to improve the working conditions of their workers, so they would put aside the comminust manifesto and would start caring about their nice car and a cosy house.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  So the first part of this is something I agree with, it feels like most of the gains came about because 'the rich' had to give 'the poor' something or they'd get rid of them in a bloody massacre. The history books are fairly clear on this, whether it's Magna Carta (rich lords putting the King on notice) or miner strikes. I believe Bismark is someone who made this strategy explicit. > The second part of Bismarck’s strategy to destroy social democracy was the introduction of social legislation to woo the workers away from political radicalism. During the 1880s, accident and old-age insurance as well as a form of socialized medicine were introduced and implemented by the government. But Bismarck’s two-pronged strategy to win the workers for the conservative regime did not succeed. Support for the Social Democrats increased with each election. I don't understand why the USSR failing or being 'bad' is necessary to further incentivize 'the rich', if anything I'd say the opposite is true.
- gaganyaan 5y ago
  Is this parody?
- jkmcf 5y ago
  Worker rights in the USA had been a big issue before WWI and the Russian Revolution. The USSR was bad because they were neither socialist or communist but an oligarchy bent on maintaining power at all cost -- just like China is today. The people at the top are the aristocrats in revolutionary France.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Workers rights were an issue everywhere in industrialized nations before WWI, it's just that the dam first broke in Russian Empire, with disastrous results. So all other nations took notice and deployed measures to not be the second country to have a proletariat uprising.

Absolutely. Piketty showed that wealth inequality peaked right before WWI and was very low in the 60/70s. The amount of wealth between these two periods does not even compare.

rbanffy 5y ago

Could the low inequality be a cause for rapid wealth expansion?

leto_ii 5y ago
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. I strongly suspect less inequality is positively correlated with a host of beneficial outcomes (more access to education and healthcare, better quality if life etc.) which can in turn lead to a virtuous cycle that would in turn increase wealth.
littlestymaar 5y ago
It's probably not the only cause, but more wealth for the poor people means people more apt to contribute to the society. Compare one billionaire buying a mega yacht and 10,000 people buying their first car, in both cases you've created say $200M in direct GDP, but in the later case you have 10,000 people more mobile to get a job or consume other goods or services.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I think the wealth increase is more easily explained by rebuilding everything we just finished blowing up, exploiting all the technological gains we made while getting better at blowing things up and using the disruption/reset as a means to achieve greater local economic maximums (e.g. historical rent seekers kicked out and things are free to become more efficient and mutually beneficial in the time it takes new ones to establish).

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

We have to thank socialism and communism for reducing wealth i equality in western Europe and in the US. But no, make no mistake, NOT because they are good, but because they're so disastrously bad, as was demonstrated by the USSR, that western elites did a lot to improve the working conditions of their workers, so they would put aside the comminust manifesto and would start caring about their nice car and a cosy house.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
So the first part of this is something I agree with, it feels like most of the gains came about because 'the rich' had to give 'the poor' something or they'd get rid of them in a bloody massacre. The history books are fairly clear on this, whether it's Magna Carta (rich lords putting the King on notice) or miner strikes. I believe Bismark is someone who made this strategy explicit. > The second part of Bismarck’s strategy to destroy social democracy was the introduction of social legislation to woo the workers away from political radicalism. During the 1880s, accident and old-age insurance as well as a form of socialized medicine were introduced and implemented by the government. But Bismarck’s two-pronged strategy to win the workers for the conservative regime did not succeed. Support for the Social Democrats increased with each election. I don't understand why the USSR failing or being 'bad' is necessary to further incentivize 'the rich', if anything I'd say the opposite is true.
gaganyaan 5y ago
Is this parody?
jkmcf 5y ago
Worker rights in the USA had been a big issue before WWI and the Russian Revolution. The USSR was bad because they were neither socialist or communist but an oligarchy bent on maintaining power at all cost -- just like China is today. The people at the top are the aristocrats in revolutionary France.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Workers rights were an issue everywhere in industrialized nations before WWI, it's just that the dam first broke in Russian Empire, with disastrous results. So all other nations took notice and deployed measures to not be the second country to have a proletariat uprising.