3 ms·

> For that reason, I think it's fair to see some level of income inequality as a necessary evil until someone can convincingly demonstrate otherwise If all you

> For that reason, I think it's fair to see some level of income inequality as a necessary evil until someone can convincingly demonstrate otherwise If all you have to share is “I guess the status quo is as good as I’m willing to allow”, just say that instead of trying to browbeat those of us who have the ability to believe a better world is possible. If all you can do is dress your FUD up as shrewd analysis, at least recognize that you aren’t actually sharing anything new and are just defending the status quo. I’m sick of this kind of dishonesty and, frankly, fear mongering in defense of a machine that operates on greed and suffering by design.

Jtype 4y ago
Utopian thinking has always, and will always, lead to disaster. There will never be a 'perfect' world for humanity, we have enough historic evidence to show how foolhardy it is to try. On the other hand, optimizing for a better balance than we have currently is possible. We had much lower levels of income disparity in the middle of the 20th century and we could certainly aim to restore those levels. However, that would be difficult in our globalized economy of the past 40 years. This is the part of neo-liberalism that is causing the most problems for the non-elite. Globalization is leveling the field for the non-elite of the world, American wages are stagnant or dropping by real value, while wages are rising in east and southeast Asia(for example). The global elites are winning no matter what. The only way to change this is to restrict globalization and international corporations, just changing US laws to tax the rich more or break up us companies won't change much as global elite will give up their citizenship and international companies will detach from their us divisions. You will need a global effort at this point to affect any change to the system, and even then you will have serious problems. And that is only for minor changes to the system. The fact that we have interconnected most of the world in the way that we have means that any disruptions to the system are global and everyone suffers.
- olsonjeffery 4y ago
  > Utopian thinking has always, and will always, lead to disaster. There will never be a 'perfect' world for humanity, we have enough historic evidence to show how foolhardy it is to try. Two responses to this: 1) Please don’t communicate in absolutes (always, never, etc); you’re speaking for yourself only and I don’t share your limited imagination. Attempts to set arbitrary axioms like this is a dialog-shutdown tactic and I don’t share your perspective. 2) Perhaps you’ve intuited this, but you didn’t respond to my actual argument (that the GP is arguing in favor of the status quo); so instead you have to invent a straw man where I’m an idealist with his head in the clouds, so that you can have something you’re qualified to respond to. Congratulations! > On the other hand, optimizing for a better balance than we have currently is possible. Why say this if you’re going to spend the rest of your post talking about how any change to adjust the status quo will be undermined by “global elites” (your phrase, not mine)? I’m not sure you’re actually interested in this beyond a rhetorical feint. You’re making the same argument as GP, know you have nothing new to share, yet still insist on browbeating anyone who points out the system isn’t producing good outcomes. > The fact that we have interconnected most of the world in the way that we have means that any disruptions to the system are global and everyone suffers. How convenient! Spoken like an ant, excited to watch the grasshopper starve.
cameronh90 4y ago
We have attempted fully equal societies though - many times. It always seems to end in mass poverty and violence against the population it claims to exist to protect. How many times do we have to try it before deciding it doesn't work? If you have a good idea, feel free to describe it, and explain how it would not suffer the same failures all past attempts have. I can't see how it would work, and if you're convinced it can, show your working. I don't defend the status quo either. I said SOME level of inequality. I personally think that inequality has gotten out of hand in the last few decades - the gap between the rich and poor has become absurd. Scandinavian nations and others have shown that a nation with less income inequality than UK/US is possible and may be desirable - though there are definite limits to how comparable Scandi countries are to countries like UK/US. Broadly equal societies may be possible at extremely small scales when in a state of abundance. Once you go past the limit where everyone knows and trusts each other, things seem to rapidly fall apart without hierarchy and inequality.

Jtype 4y ago

Utopian thinking has always, and will always, lead to disaster. There will never be a 'perfect' world for humanity, we have enough historic evidence to show how foolhardy it is to try. On the other hand, optimizing for a better balance than we have currently is possible. We had much lower levels of income disparity in the middle of the 20th century and we could certainly aim to restore those levels. However, that would be difficult in our globalized economy of the past 40 years. This is the part of neo-liberalism that is causing the most problems for the non-elite. Globalization is leveling the field for the non-elite of the world, American wages are stagnant or dropping by real value, while wages are rising in east and southeast Asia(for example). The global elites are winning no matter what. The only way to change this is to restrict globalization and international corporations, just changing US laws to tax the rich more or break up us companies won't change much as global elite will give up their citizenship and international companies will detach from their us divisions. You will need a global effort at this point to affect any change to the system, and even then you will have serious problems. And that is only for minor changes to the system. The fact that we have interconnected most of the world in the way that we have means that any disruptions to the system are global and everyone suffers.

olsonjeffery 4y ago
> Utopian thinking has always, and will always, lead to disaster. There will never be a 'perfect' world for humanity, we have enough historic evidence to show how foolhardy it is to try. Two responses to this: 1) Please don’t communicate in absolutes (always, never, etc); you’re speaking for yourself only and I don’t share your limited imagination. Attempts to set arbitrary axioms like this is a dialog-shutdown tactic and I don’t share your perspective. 2) Perhaps you’ve intuited this, but you didn’t respond to my actual argument (that the GP is arguing in favor of the status quo); so instead you have to invent a straw man where I’m an idealist with his head in the clouds, so that you can have something you’re qualified to respond to. Congratulations! > On the other hand, optimizing for a better balance than we have currently is possible. Why say this if you’re going to spend the rest of your post talking about how any change to adjust the status quo will be undermined by “global elites” (your phrase, not mine)? I’m not sure you’re actually interested in this beyond a rhetorical feint. You’re making the same argument as GP, know you have nothing new to share, yet still insist on browbeating anyone who points out the system isn’t producing good outcomes. > The fact that we have interconnected most of the world in the way that we have means that any disruptions to the system are global and everyone suffers. How convenient! Spoken like an ant, excited to watch the grasshopper starve.

cameronh90 4y ago

We have attempted fully equal societies though - many times. It always seems to end in mass poverty and violence against the population it claims to exist to protect. How many times do we have to try it before deciding it doesn't work? If you have a good idea, feel free to describe it, and explain how it would not suffer the same failures all past attempts have. I can't see how it would work, and if you're convinced it can, show your working. I don't defend the status quo either. I said SOME level of inequality. I personally think that inequality has gotten out of hand in the last few decades - the gap between the rich and poor has become absurd. Scandinavian nations and others have shown that a nation with less income inequality than UK/US is possible and may be desirable - though there are definite limits to how comparable Scandi countries are to countries like UK/US. Broadly equal societies may be possible at extremely small scales when in a state of abundance. Once you go past the limit where everyone knows and trusts each other, things seem to rapidly fall apart without hierarchy and inequality.