4 ms·
Isn't that the point? The current rules allow, even encourage such individual wealth. That is the policy failure.
by jacknews 4y ago
Isn't that the point? The current rules allow, even encourage such individual wealth. That is the policy failure.
- sokoloff 4y agoAre you representing that conclusion as based on your set of axioms (which is fine and I can’t argue against) or suggesting that those axioms are universal?
- jacknews 4y agoI don't think there's much to assume here. Governments around the world have rules about companies, salaries, taxes and so on. There exist a large number of billionaires. Therefore, assuming most of them follow the rules, the rules allow such a concentration of individual wealth. I'm not against innovators getting relatively rich, that's often the incentive to innovate, or at least to push through the 'perspiration' part of that activity, but there should be balance.
- sokoloff 4y agoSorry, I was unclear. I was referring only to the last point (that that amount of individual wealth is a policy failure) when asking about axioms. I completely agree that the current rules at least allow such wealth accumulation, which if applied across 8 billion people means that many will choose that path.
- jacknews 4y agoWell of course we can disagree whether or not billionaires are good or bad. I realize people at one extreme subscribe to the 'red in tooth and claw' natural law view of how society should be organized, and others to the opposite 'we're all in this together' view. Personally I think the existence of billionaires is a systemic failure, is morally suspect to say the least, and that such extreme inequality is bad for society and slows progress, ultimately.
- prottog 4y agoOutcomes for the median person in places where rules do not allow or encourage such individual wealth are almost universally poorer than places that do. The very system that allows billionaires to exist also incentivizes the creation of wealth that benefits everyone.
- jacknews 4y agoSource please. The research I've seen on this shows the opposite, eg the scandinavian model. Once you get past a certain level, the money itself no longer has any meaning, it's more about keeping score. We should look for ways to satisfy that drive without sucking wealth out of the rest of society.
- Aunche 4y agoAll Scandinavian countries have billionaires. Sweden and Norway even have more billionaires per capita than the US. Scandinavian countries don't treat billionaires as policy failures. They merely have higher taxes across the board. In fact, the US tax system is actually more progressive because we don't have a VAT and much lower low and middle income tax brackets.
- bee_rider 4y agoI tried "gini coefficient vs per capita GDP" and "gini coefficient vs per capita GDP" in wolfram alpha, but it just looks like a random scattering (other than the notable absence of high gini coefficient, high per capita income countries). Clearly I've missed something, would you mind elaborating?