3 ms·

Not only will there be inequality of talent (relative to whatever talents are valued at a given time, because that itself is in flux) but simulations like this

by cs137 4y ago

Not only will there be inequality of talent (relative to whatever talents are valued at a given time, because that itself is in flux) but simulations like this show that random inequality is not an aberration, but inevitable. The more precisely realistic one is his geometric-variance model, in which some end up in massive debt while others end up very rich--a permanent division of society into landlords/bosses and peons. In theory, the state is supposed to prevent this through taxation and policy, but what we observe in capitalist countries is that the wealthy inevitably corrupt the state that is supposed to constrain them. The US is already at third-world levels of corruption and inequality, and the EU is only 20 years or so behind on this neoliberal roller coaster to nowhere. Capitalism promises equilibrium, but it diverges. The people in charge will always have the power and resources to see to it that (a) they stay in charge, and (b) the gains from economic growth go solely to them.

vsareto 4y ago
>but simulations like this show that random inequality is not an aberration, but inevitable. At least some of this wealth is completely inherited (maybe even most of it). There's not a good mechanism to determine how much someone should inherit, but I bet wealth being limited to the lifetime of one person would certainly change the model and make it not-so-inevitable.
caracustard 4y ago
Talent is inherently "inequal" as you can't put any sort of a restriction or a cap on the skills or abilities of an individual so i'm not sure what you're trying to say there. The results of the "precisely realistic" model (according to you) are not taking into account the self-employed members of society but are also attempting to create an artificial divide in the aformentioned society by labeling them ("peons"? seriously?). So much for your seemingly pro-equality message. What exactly is the state supposed to prevent? Employment of individuals by other individuals? The ability of an individual to OWN property rather than being at the states mercy? Free trade between members of society? "...the wealthy inevitably corrupt the state..." golly gee, so that's why all of those non-capitalist, anti-wealth utopias of the past are...gone? "The US is already at third-world levels of corruption and inequality..." except the American perception of corruption and inequality is "i earn 70k per year, i drive Hyundai, my boss earns 200k, he drives Mercedes, very bad!!!" which is different from say earning 3k per year, not having any access to quality financing services (which would allow you to start your OWN business) and on top of that not having a vehicle at all (which in many countries, especially the post-antiwealth-utopias is still a pipe dream for most). No it doesn't. Capitalism promises and provides the ability to convert your abilities, wealth and products of abilities/wealth/wealth+abilities as an individual or a group of individuals into monetary units which are then used as "fuel" for facilitating trade/services in the society. Also i find it ironic that your last sentence perfectly describes every communist state of the past: they stay in charge (one party system, transfer of power between the Party members), the gains from economic growth go solely to them (the state is the only employer and services/products provider and as a result the Party becomes the main benefactor from everyones labour while the people recieve mere scraps without any way establish any business of their own) and how it also ignores that regardless of the system in use taxation is still a thing with the only difference being the percentage of taxes taken. Perhaps it's time to stop trying to make false equialences of hierarchy and capitalism, considering that the latter allows you to minimize your dependency on any sort of a hierarchy?
imtringued 4y ago
What? The simulation proves that inequality is an abberation because it assumes a permanent money model where capital never depreciates.

by cs137 4y ago

vsareto 4y ago

>but simulations like this show that random inequality is not an aberration, but inevitable. At least some of this wealth is completely inherited (maybe even most of it). There's not a good mechanism to determine how much someone should inherit, but I bet wealth being limited to the lifetime of one person would certainly change the model and make it not-so-inevitable.

caracustard 4y ago

Talent is inherently "inequal" as you can't put any sort of a restriction or a cap on the skills or abilities of an individual so i'm not sure what you're trying to say there. The results of the "precisely realistic" model (according to you) are not taking into account the self-employed members of society but are also attempting to create an artificial divide in the aformentioned society by labeling them ("peons"? seriously?). So much for your seemingly pro-equality message. What exactly is the state supposed to prevent? Employment of individuals by other individuals? The ability of an individual to OWN property rather than being at the states mercy? Free trade between members of society? "...the wealthy inevitably corrupt the state..." golly gee, so that's why all of those non-capitalist, anti-wealth utopias of the past are...gone? "The US is already at third-world levels of corruption and inequality..." except the American perception of corruption and inequality is "i earn 70k per year, i drive Hyundai, my boss earns 200k, he drives Mercedes, very bad!!!" which is different from say earning 3k per year, not having any access to quality financing services (which would allow you to start your OWN business) and on top of that not having a vehicle at all (which in many countries, especially the post-antiwealth-utopias is still a pipe dream for most). No it doesn't. Capitalism promises and provides the ability to convert your abilities, wealth and products of abilities/wealth/wealth+abilities as an individual or a group of individuals into monetary units which are then used as "fuel" for facilitating trade/services in the society. Also i find it ironic that your last sentence perfectly describes every communist state of the past: they stay in charge (one party system, transfer of power between the Party members), the gains from economic growth go solely to them (the state is the only employer and services/products provider and as a result the Party becomes the main benefactor from everyones labour while the people recieve mere scraps without any way establish any business of their own) and how it also ignores that regardless of the system in use taxation is still a thing with the only difference being the percentage of taxes taken. Perhaps it's time to stop trying to make false equialences of hierarchy and capitalism, considering that the latter allows you to minimize your dependency on any sort of a hierarchy?

imtringued 4y ago

What? The simulation proves that inequality is an abberation because it assumes a permanent money model where capital never depreciates.