3 ms·

> Either that, or they're history buffs. What precipitates the redistribution of wealth, historically? Some kind of gigantic disaster -- war, famine, plague, so

> Either that, or they're history buffs. What precipitates the redistribution of wealth, historically? Some kind of gigantic disaster -- war, famine, plague, social collapse. You're mistaking redistribution for destruction... Sure, things are technically more equal if everyone becomes homeless. But there wasn't really a redistribution...

makomk 4y ago
A lot of people who think along these lines, especially younger people, don't think of wealth as something that can be created or destroyed at all. They just believe that there's some fixed amount out there, and that if ordinary people don't have enough that must be because the super-rich have stolen their fair share and need to be brought down a peg. The very idea of wealth that can be created is seen as a lie spread by the super rich to conceal their theft. (I do wonder if part of this is that a lot of people are too young to have seen their societies become substantially better of as a whole, unlike previous generations.)
- glogla 4y ago
  I think you can in theory believe that wealth can be created - but also at the same time be convinced that modern heavily financialized[1] economy does very little of that. Add to that how a lot of people have seen their societies become substantially worse of as a whole - yes, iPhones are awesome and modern cars are safer and so on, but instead of having a union job you pee in bottles in Amazon warehouse, and instead of buying a home you are forever renting a studio apartment. The Simpsons titular family of one high school educated guy with house and three kids on single income went from "typical boring dude" to "impossible dream" over the course of one or two generations, after all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization
revolvingocelot 4y ago
>You're mistaking redistribution for destruction... No, you are. With respect, you should consider reading some history. Try reading about the conditions of the peasantry after the black plague, or postwar Europe, or even the various falls of the various iterations of Rome. Fire destroys the previous order, yes, but it also sows the seeds for growth. But fire bad! Yes, yes, I know; but this forest isn't the only forest, nor is it the only possible forest. Fire bad, but fire is the only way to fix this situation, because of the way "we" have "managed" our "forests" for as long as I've been alive. Maybe I need to be a Boomer to properly "understand". If there's another solution, I'm all ears, but history suggests that fire is the only solution.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Ok, so if we destroy the current order, how many people will die or suffer? How long until the growth occurs, and how fast will it take to get back to the current state of things?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  > Fire destroys the previous order, yes, but it also sows the seeds for growth. You're ignoring base effects. Of course peasants are going to "prosper" (on paper) if agriculture goes from 1% of the economy to 100%. And, again, this isn't a "wealth redistribution". You've taken out 99% of the economy and left the remaining 1% in tact. It didn't grow. But it did grow relative to the rest that was destroyed.

makomk 4y ago

A lot of people who think along these lines, especially younger people, don't think of wealth as something that can be created or destroyed at all. They just believe that there's some fixed amount out there, and that if ordinary people don't have enough that must be because the super-rich have stolen their fair share and need to be brought down a peg. The very idea of wealth that can be created is seen as a lie spread by the super rich to conceal their theft. (I do wonder if part of this is that a lot of people are too young to have seen their societies become substantially better of as a whole, unlike previous generations.)

glogla 4y ago
I think you can in theory believe that wealth can be created - but also at the same time be convinced that modern heavily financialized[1] economy does very little of that. Add to that how a lot of people have seen their societies become substantially worse of as a whole - yes, iPhones are awesome and modern cars are safer and so on, but instead of having a union job you pee in bottles in Amazon warehouse, and instead of buying a home you are forever renting a studio apartment. The Simpsons titular family of one high school educated guy with house and three kids on single income went from "typical boring dude" to "impossible dream" over the course of one or two generations, after all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization

revolvingocelot 4y ago

>You're mistaking redistribution for destruction... No, you are. With respect, you should consider reading some history. Try reading about the conditions of the peasantry after the black plague, or postwar Europe, or even the various falls of the various iterations of Rome. Fire destroys the previous order, yes, but it also sows the seeds for growth. But fire bad! Yes, yes, I know; but this forest isn't the only forest, nor is it the only possible forest. Fire bad, but fire is the only way to fix this situation, because of the way "we" have "managed" our "forests" for as long as I've been alive. Maybe I need to be a Boomer to properly "understand". If there's another solution, I'm all ears, but history suggests that fire is the only solution.

newsclues 4y ago
Ok, so if we destroy the current order, how many people will die or suffer? How long until the growth occurs, and how fast will it take to get back to the current state of things?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
> Fire destroys the previous order, yes, but it also sows the seeds for growth. You're ignoring base effects. Of course peasants are going to "prosper" (on paper) if agriculture goes from 1% of the economy to 100%. And, again, this isn't a "wealth redistribution". You've taken out 99% of the economy and left the remaining 1% in tact. It didn't grow. But it did grow relative to the rest that was destroyed.