5 ms·

> The study says, “We see that sufficient redistribution can reduce both inequality and polarisation, although a high degree of redistribution is required to pr

by umvi 5y ago

> The study says, “We see that sufficient redistribution can reduce both inequality and polarisation, although a high degree of redistribution is required to prevent polarisation.” Have they factored in the act of wealth redistribution itself being polarizing? From a statistical/theoretical perspective it checks out, but I bet practically speaking if you actually tried "a high degree of [wealth] distribution", the middle and upper classes would start screaming and it would cause even more polarization. If the key thing needed to reduce polarization is "reducing inequality", it would probably be good to investigate alternative methods of reducing inequality as well.

Miner49er 5y ago
Maybe this very thing is what is already causing polarization? Many people are already trying to reduce wealth inequality. Maybe the upper classes are fighting back in a way that causes polarization.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Well, yes. There's a number of politically-active billionaires funding all sorts of weird hyper-polarizing "news" sources. I put "news" in quotes because when sued for libel these "news" outlets use the defense of "nobody could possibly have believed this was true, it's just entertainment". If a redistributionist looks like they will become popular they will get smeared into the ground.
- tfigment 5y ago
  Look at housing in the US. Every home owner gate keeps and many rent seek. It is expected that value does not go down and actually increases faster than inflation. That is rational per person but net detrimental and a significant part of increasing inequity as poor and young cannot keep pace generally. Wealth begets wealth. Its also arguable if home owners are the upper class. Maybe there will be another correction but the govt will likely step in to prevent it.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  At what level of wealth inequality do you imagine the upper classes saying, "ok, I guess we've got enough, we can stop fighting back now"?
  - Miner49er 5y ago
    Never
dylan604 5y ago
>it would probably be good to investigate alternative methods of reducing inequality as well. The serfs will always outnumber the lords. It's just a matter of keeping them pacified to sufficient levels so that revolting isn't a serious concern. As you've suggested, other things to keep the masses pacified can come in many forms other than direct payments of cash. Stop reducing spending on public schools, public transport. Stop tearing down low rent housing in order to gentrify it with new housing that the original residents can no longer afford. Eliminate food deserts in populated areas. Just a few off the top of head
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Unless “the serfs” are hate and fear other “serfs” more than they hate and fear “the lords.” This is very much a real dynamic.
0xcde4c3db 5y ago
I don't know about the UK (where this study is based), but wealth distribution in the US is extremely top-heavy [1], and there are a bunch of surveys showing that most people drastically underestimate the inequality [2]. I think it's hard to predict the political effect because a lot of people have these unrealistic ideas of how income and wealth are distributed, and it's not obvious how durable those misconceptions would be in the face of a concrete redistribution policy. That is, how many people would still believe that the policy is bad for them if they could go to the IRS website and be told they're getting a bunch of money? [1] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/mar/10/michael-mo... [2] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130395070 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130395...
- Maarten88 5y ago
  This is the genius of what the top 1% in the US have accomplished: they have convinced almost half of the population to take their side, against their own interest, by making them feel they are part of the upper class when they are actually not, or think they will somehow get rich shortly ("temporarily embarrassed millionaires") or that redistribution is for the weak, who do not deserve it and should work harder.
fortran77 5y ago
And if they succeed, we'd be in Harrison Bergeron's universe.

by umvi 5y ago

Miner49er 5y ago

Maybe this very thing is what is already causing polarization? Many people are already trying to reduce wealth inequality. Maybe the upper classes are fighting back in a way that causes polarization.

pjc50 5y ago
Well, yes. There's a number of politically-active billionaires funding all sorts of weird hyper-polarizing "news" sources. I put "news" in quotes because when sued for libel these "news" outlets use the defense of "nobody could possibly have believed this was true, it's just entertainment". If a redistributionist looks like they will become popular they will get smeared into the ground.
tfigment 5y ago
Look at housing in the US. Every home owner gate keeps and many rent seek. It is expected that value does not go down and actually increases faster than inflation. That is rational per person but net detrimental and a significant part of increasing inequity as poor and young cannot keep pace generally. Wealth begets wealth. Its also arguable if home owners are the upper class. Maybe there will be another correction but the govt will likely step in to prevent it.
hotpotamus 5y ago
At what level of wealth inequality do you imagine the upper classes saying, "ok, I guess we've got enough, we can stop fighting back now"?
- Miner49er 5y ago
  Never

dylan604 5y ago

>it would probably be good to investigate alternative methods of reducing inequality as well. The serfs will always outnumber the lords. It's just a matter of keeping them pacified to sufficient levels so that revolting isn't a serious concern. As you've suggested, other things to keep the masses pacified can come in many forms other than direct payments of cash. Stop reducing spending on public schools, public transport. Stop tearing down low rent housing in order to gentrify it with new housing that the original residents can no longer afford. Eliminate food deserts in populated areas. Just a few off the top of head

pyuser583 5y ago
Unless “the serfs” are hate and fear other “serfs” more than they hate and fear “the lords.” This is very much a real dynamic.

0xcde4c3db 5y ago

I don't know about the UK (where this study is based), but wealth distribution in the US is extremely top-heavy [1], and there are a bunch of surveys showing that most people drastically underestimate the inequality [2]. I think it's hard to predict the political effect because a lot of people have these unrealistic ideas of how income and wealth are distributed, and it's not obvious how durable those misconceptions would be in the face of a concrete redistribution policy. That is, how many people would still believe that the policy is bad for them if they could go to the IRS website and be told they're getting a bunch of money? [1] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/mar/10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/mar/10/michael-mo... [2] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130395070 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130395...

Maarten88 5y ago
This is the genius of what the top 1% in the US have accomplished: they have convinced almost half of the population to take their side, against their own interest, by making them feel they are part of the upper class when they are actually not, or think they will somehow get rich shortly ("temporarily embarrassed millionaires") or that redistribution is for the weak, who do not deserve it and should work harder.

fortran77 5y ago

And if they succeed, we'd be in Harrison Bergeron's universe.