10 ms·

This is really interesting. I always balk against people talking about inequality with this sort of thing in mind: the problem isn't inequality, it's how good t

This is really interesting. I always balk against people talking about inequality with this sort of thing in mind: the problem isn't inequality, it's how good the low and average standards of living are, and whether they're improving. It requires no talent, only power, to take people's stuff and redistribute it. It requires talent and effort to create new things that raise the bar for everyone, and just as much to maintain the political environment that allows that to happen. I don't know if that fits your story; if not apologies, as I didn't mean to hijack it!

n4r9 3y ago
> the problem isn't inequality, it's how good the low and average standards of living are, and whether they're improving I understand this perspective, but I still think inequality is important. Inequality is a measure of how good the low standards are Vs how good they could be.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I suppose that's true, but I don't think that's how it's used. Also, that's only useful where it's helpful. We don't live in a world where everyone can eat expensive meals every night, because those require work from other people. What is actually helpful is the rich buying a load of stuff, some of which is crazy, and the useful things are identified by entrepreneurs as being worthy of trying to bring to mass market, and then suddenly (almost) everyone can afford them, and they can even be sold in other countries for a lower price that couldn't make them in the next 500 years. E.g. reading glasses were once for the rich, and now are so prevalent that we don't realise what a privilege being able to access them is. But none of that requires knowledge of inequality. Simple market forces will do that.
opportune 3y ago
Humans are social creatures with an innate sense of “status”. Absolute material inequality is only one form of inequality. You can feed, clothe, and give iPhones to the very poor but if they are at the bottom of a very deep social hierarchy with no hope to climb out of it, that inequality is still going to cause a lot of problems. People might turn to a life of crime for lack of better options, or participate into a violent machismo culture in an attempt to salvage their masculinity/status as a man. Of course, the fallacy of every attempt at socialism is that “abolishing class” simply replaces the capitalist social hierarchy with a new hierarchy based on position within the Party or blessed sectors like the military, science, or intelligence, complete with large differences in material living standards. However, a greatly reduced disparity in living standards and material conditions does have positive social effects IMO. Consider that deaths of despair, poverty, and desperation are much higher under the Russian Federation than the USSR. I’m not saying that communism or socialism are good by any means, but I think there are real net benefits to low inequality sometimes even if they come at the expense of overall lower living standards.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Yeah also compare western Europe to America. As we have much better welfare and higher taxes, income inequality is much lower here in Europe. And in particular violent crime is much much lower as a result. I'm not saying going full communist is an option but all out everyone-for-themselves capitalism doesn't work either. And really why do people need to be able to have billions? They can never use it up in their lifetime anyway.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > As we have much better welfare and higher taxes, income inequality is much lower here in Europe. And in particular violent crime is much much lower as a result. I don't think this is an obvious inference. There are many factors that cause crime, and violent crime. E.g. I don't know if this is valid, but as an example to consider: America has countries to its south that are markedly different in prosperity. As people move from those countries into America, wealth disparity goes up without anyone doing anything to make others poorer. If Western Europe doesn't have this same situation, then the disparity won't be constantly increased, and it's easier to optimise over time with taxes. Or how about this: the US taxpayer pays for the majority of global defence. If you live in a Western European country, you have benefitted from this. You may have only recently joined NATO having suddenly realised it's time to buy some insurance one second before the car crash, and luckily for you the US is willing to be that insurer that accepts you. This means you could spend money on vote-winning policies instead of on national defence for a long time. As I say, there are many factors. Just saying that raising taxes and increasing welfare are the keys to lowering violent crime is not sufficient, I think.
- the_af 3y ago
  > However, a greatly reduced disparity in living standards and material conditions does have positive social effects IMO. Consider that deaths of despair, poverty, and desperation are much higher under the Russian Federation than the USSR. I’m not saying that communism or socialism are good by any means, but I think there are real net benefits to low inequality sometimes even if they come at the expense of overall lower living standards. It's interesting that the fear of being accused of sympathizing with Communism is so ingrained in the English speaking world that the simplest thought of claiming that inequality is bad and should be reduced must be coached in so many disclaimers of "but I'm not saying I like socialism" and "I'm sure living in that society was terrible". I don't fault you, mind you. There's good reason to fear this backlash in a world that is rapidly equating Communism to Nazism and all forms of socialism and redistribution to Stalinism. I know I'm making a mistake in posting this thought so plainly here, for example.

n4r9 3y ago

> the problem isn't inequality, it's how good the low and average standards of living are, and whether they're improving I understand this perspective, but I still think inequality is important. Inequality is a measure of how good the low standards are Vs how good they could be.

robertlagrant 3y ago
I suppose that's true, but I don't think that's how it's used. Also, that's only useful where it's helpful. We don't live in a world where everyone can eat expensive meals every night, because those require work from other people. What is actually helpful is the rich buying a load of stuff, some of which is crazy, and the useful things are identified by entrepreneurs as being worthy of trying to bring to mass market, and then suddenly (almost) everyone can afford them, and they can even be sold in other countries for a lower price that couldn't make them in the next 500 years. E.g. reading glasses were once for the rich, and now are so prevalent that we don't realise what a privilege being able to access them is. But none of that requires knowledge of inequality. Simple market forces will do that.

opportune 3y ago

Humans are social creatures with an innate sense of “status”. Absolute material inequality is only one form of inequality. You can feed, clothe, and give iPhones to the very poor but if they are at the bottom of a very deep social hierarchy with no hope to climb out of it, that inequality is still going to cause a lot of problems. People might turn to a life of crime for lack of better options, or participate into a violent machismo culture in an attempt to salvage their masculinity/status as a man. Of course, the fallacy of every attempt at socialism is that “abolishing class” simply replaces the capitalist social hierarchy with a new hierarchy based on position within the Party or blessed sectors like the military, science, or intelligence, complete with large differences in material living standards. However, a greatly reduced disparity in living standards and material conditions does have positive social effects IMO. Consider that deaths of despair, poverty, and desperation are much higher under the Russian Federation than the USSR. I’m not saying that communism or socialism are good by any means, but I think there are real net benefits to low inequality sometimes even if they come at the expense of overall lower living standards.

wkat4242 3y ago
Yeah also compare western Europe to America. As we have much better welfare and higher taxes, income inequality is much lower here in Europe. And in particular violent crime is much much lower as a result. I'm not saying going full communist is an option but all out everyone-for-themselves capitalism doesn't work either. And really why do people need to be able to have billions? They can never use it up in their lifetime anyway.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > As we have much better welfare and higher taxes, income inequality is much lower here in Europe. And in particular violent crime is much much lower as a result. I don't think this is an obvious inference. There are many factors that cause crime, and violent crime. E.g. I don't know if this is valid, but as an example to consider: America has countries to its south that are markedly different in prosperity. As people move from those countries into America, wealth disparity goes up without anyone doing anything to make others poorer. If Western Europe doesn't have this same situation, then the disparity won't be constantly increased, and it's easier to optimise over time with taxes. Or how about this: the US taxpayer pays for the majority of global defence. If you live in a Western European country, you have benefitted from this. You may have only recently joined NATO having suddenly realised it's time to buy some insurance one second before the car crash, and luckily for you the US is willing to be that insurer that accepts you. This means you could spend money on vote-winning policies instead of on national defence for a long time. As I say, there are many factors. Just saying that raising taxes and increasing welfare are the keys to lowering violent crime is not sufficient, I think.
the_af 3y ago
> However, a greatly reduced disparity in living standards and material conditions does have positive social effects IMO. Consider that deaths of despair, poverty, and desperation are much higher under the Russian Federation than the USSR. I’m not saying that communism or socialism are good by any means, but I think there are real net benefits to low inequality sometimes even if they come at the expense of overall lower living standards. It's interesting that the fear of being accused of sympathizing with Communism is so ingrained in the English speaking world that the simplest thought of claiming that inequality is bad and should be reduced must be coached in so many disclaimers of "but I'm not saying I like socialism" and "I'm sure living in that society was terrible". I don't fault you, mind you. There's good reason to fear this backlash in a world that is rapidly equating Communism to Nazism and all forms of socialism and redistribution to Stalinism. I know I'm making a mistake in posting this thought so plainly here, for example.