3 ms·

What do you suggest is the alternative? To equitably empower the poor and the wealthy even though the poor cost more to empower and have less potential to give

by toolz 3y ago

What do you suggest is the alternative? To equitably empower the poor and the wealthy even though the poor cost more to empower and have less potential to give back to the country? If you want a wealthy country, I imagine you have strike a balance that favors empowering the wealthy.

ribosometronome 3y ago
Toolz, I think you're arguing for slavery.
- toolz 3y ago
  Surely you don't think slavery is an attempt at striking a balance?
maxbond 3y ago
Not the GP, but I actually don't care at all about living in a "wealthy country," I'd like to live in a country where our resources are allocated appropriately, we're able to invest in ourselves and our futures, and people have access to what they need regardless of their wealth, influence, or ability. That doesn't require wealth as much as it requires equity. We get wealthier every year but we don't get more equitable, and our investment in things like education, health care, and infrastructure is definitely not rising accordingly. It has never been the case that we simply weren't wealthy enough to build a just society, it's that our society is structured to promote inequality and maximize the influence of the wealthy.
- toolz 3y ago
  I think not caring about living in a wealthy country is a perfectly fine value judgement to make for yourself, but as someone with just a modest amount of experience living in poor countries, I highly value wealth. Maybe my value system that blames wealth is misappropriating the value to wealth when really it's things that correlate with wealth? That's possible of course, but with such consistent correlation I have to imagine it's hard to separate wealth from the society that I most prefer living in. Happy to be wrong, as equity is a lot more palatable emotionally.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Well it's hard to say without knowing more precisely what you mean, but I can imagine any number of factors that might correlate with a nation's wealth, eg, people might have more time to engage in civil society, they have a stronger military and diplomatic position and so other counties aren't liable to meddle with them, they might achieve the appearance of improving conditions by commiting their worst abuses abroad (eg setting up a sweat shop in another country), etc. I certainly won't claim that wealth isn't an important factor in outcomes, what I really mean is that it's not a great terminal goal for a society. We shouldn't be hoarding resources, we should be using them to create a better world for ourselves and for future people.
    - toolz 3y ago
      We definitely agree on wealth not being the goal, but my limited understanding and experience suggests that the goals worth having, require wealth to achieve.
      - maxbond 3y ago
        Everything costs something, and maybe I'm looking at things through US centric politics, but in my experience people who are ideologically opposed to social programs use costs as a way to cloak their ideology in technocratic language and cast themselves as "the sober adults in the room" rather than ideologues. In truth we waste a stupendous amount of money and human potential by, for instance, introducing a system of unnecessary middle men (insurance companies) to the healthcare system rather than negotiating with pharmaceutical companies as a nation with astronomical buying power. Human potential, I'll note, is worthy in it's own right, but is also a very valuable through a strictly economic lens. People who meet their potential contribute immensely to the economy, people who aren't able to because their society never bothered to invest in them may contribute not not nearly as much as they could have. Eg, if we hadn't funded NASA, we wouldn't have a space industry (to say nothing of the many other industries that benefited in ancillary ways).
        toolz 3y ago

by toolz 3y ago

ribosometronome 3y ago

Toolz, I think you're arguing for slavery.

toolz 3y ago
Surely you don't think slavery is an attempt at striking a balance?

maxbond 3y ago

Not the GP, but I actually don't care at all about living in a "wealthy country," I'd like to live in a country where our resources are allocated appropriately, we're able to invest in ourselves and our futures, and people have access to what they need regardless of their wealth, influence, or ability. That doesn't require wealth as much as it requires equity. We get wealthier every year but we don't get more equitable, and our investment in things like education, health care, and infrastructure is definitely not rising accordingly. It has never been the case that we simply weren't wealthy enough to build a just society, it's that our society is structured to promote inequality and maximize the influence of the wealthy.

toolz 3y ago
I think not caring about living in a wealthy country is a perfectly fine value judgement to make for yourself, but as someone with just a modest amount of experience living in poor countries, I highly value wealth. Maybe my value system that blames wealth is misappropriating the value to wealth when really it's things that correlate with wealth? That's possible of course, but with such consistent correlation I have to imagine it's hard to separate wealth from the society that I most prefer living in. Happy to be wrong, as equity is a lot more palatable emotionally.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Well it's hard to say without knowing more precisely what you mean, but I can imagine any number of factors that might correlate with a nation's wealth, eg, people might have more time to engage in civil society, they have a stronger military and diplomatic position and so other counties aren't liable to meddle with them, they might achieve the appearance of improving conditions by commiting their worst abuses abroad (eg setting up a sweat shop in another country), etc. I certainly won't claim that wealth isn't an important factor in outcomes, what I really mean is that it's not a great terminal goal for a society. We shouldn't be hoarding resources, we should be using them to create a better world for ourselves and for future people.
  - toolz 3y ago
    We definitely agree on wealth not being the goal, but my limited understanding and experience suggests that the goals worth having, require wealth to achieve.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      Everything costs something, and maybe I'm looking at things through US centric politics, but in my experience people who are ideologically opposed to social programs use costs as a way to cloak their ideology in technocratic language and cast themselves as "the sober adults in the room" rather than ideologues. In truth we waste a stupendous amount of money and human potential by, for instance, introducing a system of unnecessary middle men (insurance companies) to the healthcare system rather than negotiating with pharmaceutical companies as a nation with astronomical buying power. Human potential, I'll note, is worthy in it's own right, but is also a very valuable through a strictly economic lens. People who meet their potential contribute immensely to the economy, people who aren't able to because their society never bothered to invest in them may contribute not not nearly as much as they could have. Eg, if we hadn't funded NASA, we wouldn't have a space industry (to say nothing of the many other industries that benefited in ancillary ways).
      - toolz 3y ago