4 ms·

Isn't this unspoken assumption just pareto-efficiency? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency It's not

by js8 5y ago

Isn't this unspoken assumption just pareto-efficiency? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency It's not particularly well-hidden..

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Rather than openly say, "this is the best solution possible, as long as we don't take the rich people's money and redistribute it, which would definately be better" they talk about how something is "Pareto efficient or optimal". Imagine you were stuck on a deserted island and one guy had hoarded all the coconuts. If someone started talking about what the Pareto optimal solution is, or how we could theoretically get there by creating a free market for coconuts then it would clearly be a smokescreen for saying "you are all going to starve to death because I have claimed the coconuts and will physically attack you if you try to take them from me"
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  > as long as we don't take the rich people's money and redistribute it, which would definately be better Would it, though? It’s not like this hasn’t been done repeatedly throughout history. Go read up on the campaign against the Russian kulak class for a particularly bloody example. Mao’s Cultural Revolution was in a similar vein, and that didn’t exactly go swimmingly.
  - danaris 5y ago
    "These specific authoritarian systems that used communist/socialist language as a smokescreen to get the people to go along with them did not create beneficial results" is not the gotcha argument you think it is.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    I'm sure he was referring to the more moderate policies enacted in social democracies where income above a high threshold is taxed at higher rates to pay for social services. "Take from the rich to give to the poor" rarely means take everything.
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      Yeah, in my hypothetical, the rich just become ordinary citizens, the same as everyone else, free to earn their way in life on their talents without wealth or lack of affecting their success in life. This is actually a factor in the overall increase in efficiency. Historically though, offer them that option and they'll prefer using their wealth to start a war. Examples: Free the slaves -> no -> civil War, slave rebellions. Let me vote -> no -> civil, revolutionary and independence wars.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    I have actually been reading some original sources from the Russian revolution, still making my way forwards in time though. I might do the same for China, but heres the intro paragraph from Wikipedia: > Historians in mainland China trace the origins of the 1949 Revolution to sharp inequalities in society and imperialist aggression. They charge that high rates of rent, usury and taxes concentrated wealth into the hands of a minority of village chiefs and landlords. One Western historian quotes the statistic that "Ten percent of the agricultural population of China possessed as much as two-thirds of the land".[5] These historians also argue that imperialist pressure by the Western powers and the Japanese and "Century of Humiliation" starting with the Opium Wars and including unequal treaties and the Boxer Rebellion led to a rise in nationalism, class consciousness and leftism.[citation needed]

by js8 5y ago

Isn't this unspoken assumption just pareto-efficiency? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency It's not particularly well-hidden..

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Rather than openly say, "this is the best solution possible, as long as we don't take the rich people's money and redistribute it, which would definately be better" they talk about how something is "Pareto efficient or optimal". Imagine you were stuck on a deserted island and one guy had hoarded all the coconuts. If someone started talking about what the Pareto optimal solution is, or how we could theoretically get there by creating a free market for coconuts then it would clearly be a smokescreen for saying "you are all going to starve to death because I have claimed the coconuts and will physically attack you if you try to take them from me"

jkhdigital 5y ago
> as long as we don't take the rich people's money and redistribute it, which would definately be better Would it, though? It’s not like this hasn’t been done repeatedly throughout history. Go read up on the campaign against the Russian kulak class for a particularly bloody example. Mao’s Cultural Revolution was in a similar vein, and that didn’t exactly go swimmingly.
- danaris 5y ago
  "These specific authoritarian systems that used communist/socialist language as a smokescreen to get the people to go along with them did not create beneficial results" is not the gotcha argument you think it is.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  I'm sure he was referring to the more moderate policies enacted in social democracies where income above a high threshold is taxed at higher rates to pay for social services. "Take from the rich to give to the poor" rarely means take everything.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Yeah, in my hypothetical, the rich just become ordinary citizens, the same as everyone else, free to earn their way in life on their talents without wealth or lack of affecting their success in life. This is actually a factor in the overall increase in efficiency. Historically though, offer them that option and they'll prefer using their wealth to start a war. Examples: Free the slaves -> no -> civil War, slave rebellions. Let me vote -> no -> civil, revolutionary and independence wars.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I have actually been reading some original sources from the Russian revolution, still making my way forwards in time though. I might do the same for China, but heres the intro paragraph from Wikipedia: > Historians in mainland China trace the origins of the 1949 Revolution to sharp inequalities in society and imperialist aggression. They charge that high rates of rent, usury and taxes concentrated wealth into the hands of a minority of village chiefs and landlords. One Western historian quotes the statistic that "Ten percent of the agricultural population of China possessed as much as two-thirds of the land".[5] These historians also argue that imperialist pressure by the Western powers and the Japanese and "Century of Humiliation" starting with the Opium Wars and including unequal treaties and the Boxer Rebellion led to a rise in nationalism, class consciousness and leftism.[citation needed]