5 ms·

Please dive into the literature on inequality. You will discover that inequality in itself is problematic.

Aloisius 2y ago
Having read literature on it, I still struggle to understand how most of the problems attributed to income inequality aren't really problems of poverty.
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  An example is that inequality usually materializes in higher asset prices: people with proportionately more money tends to buy assets, driving up the price. Now, the less well of people cannot afford housing anymore and are priced out. Ingerently this not because housing is expensive, but solely because of income inequality. You can insist it is because of poverty. But making both groups 10 times as well off would make no difference. The less we'll off people would still struggle to access housing. You can also say that poverty is a total consequence of income inequality. Now come and tell me again how inequality makes the world a better place. Edit: I take, as you have read the literature, that you perfectly know that the same is the case of capital and produce from that capital in general. And so you are perfectly enlightened now to understand that poverty is inequality.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    People with substantial multiples of wealth largely do not buy the same class of assets that those with a fraction of theirs do. Someone who earns $1000/month and someone who earns $10 million/month are not competing for the same housing. Their effect on each other is minimal compared to those with very similar incomes who are competing for the same housing. The only exception to this would be if there isn't enough housing for everyone, but the outcome would be identical (someone not getting housing) regardless of the level of inequality. The idea that poverty is inequality makes little sense. Poverty is lacking a basic standard of living. If everyone has everyone they could want and their neighbor discovers an antimatter reserve under them catapulting them to unheard of levels of wealth, nothing materially changes for everyone else. Similarly if everyone has perfectly equal income and wealth and still doesn't have enough to eat, they're all in poverty, regardless of the lack of inequality.
    - tossandthrow 2y ago
      Seems like you didn't read that literature after all. You definitely would Understand that ownership also comes in the form of owning rentals, mortgages, and not just owner occupied housing. That ownership is stock and shares with increasing valuations where you require increasing yields - requirements that makes the produce of the companies more expensive to support these valuations - inflation without a basis for salary inflation (as that would make the incomes more equal, which you explicitly forbade). If half the population (your naighbor in you analogy) amassed significant wealth, it most certainly would materially change your wealth and make you poor - their money would gravitate to equity, yours and your kids equity. Literally making your poor.
      - Aloisius 2y ago
        It sounds like what I missed it isn't worth reading. Arguing poverty is essentially a relative measure of wealth or somehow other's wealth, even unexploited or unused wealth, somehow makes everyone poor with the sudden knowledge that it exists? I am interested in economics here, not philosophy.
        tossandthrow 2y ago
        The books that touches exactly that ideas are amongst other * "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" - Thomas Piketty * "The Spirit Level" - Wilkinson & Pickett * "The Price of Inequality" - Joseph Stiglitz However, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if none of these authors ring a bell. But is seems like you are perfectly able to articulate the ideas - just not to internalize them. Yet.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        How is Cuba doing with all that equality? Maybe read: "Free To Choose" - Milton Friedman ?
        tossandthrow 2y ago
WalterBright 2y ago
I've read about societies where everyone is equal. They're all hellscapes.

Having read literature on it, I still struggle to understand how most of the problems attributed to income inequality aren't really problems of poverty.

tossandthrow 2y ago
An example is that inequality usually materializes in higher asset prices: people with proportionately more money tends to buy assets, driving up the price. Now, the less well of people cannot afford housing anymore and are priced out. Ingerently this not because housing is expensive, but solely because of income inequality. You can insist it is because of poverty. But making both groups 10 times as well off would make no difference. The less we'll off people would still struggle to access housing. You can also say that poverty is a total consequence of income inequality. Now come and tell me again how inequality makes the world a better place. Edit: I take, as you have read the literature, that you perfectly know that the same is the case of capital and produce from that capital in general. And so you are perfectly enlightened now to understand that poverty is inequality.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  People with substantial multiples of wealth largely do not buy the same class of assets that those with a fraction of theirs do. Someone who earns $1000/month and someone who earns $10 million/month are not competing for the same housing. Their effect on each other is minimal compared to those with very similar incomes who are competing for the same housing. The only exception to this would be if there isn't enough housing for everyone, but the outcome would be identical (someone not getting housing) regardless of the level of inequality. The idea that poverty is inequality makes little sense. Poverty is lacking a basic standard of living. If everyone has everyone they could want and their neighbor discovers an antimatter reserve under them catapulting them to unheard of levels of wealth, nothing materially changes for everyone else. Similarly if everyone has perfectly equal income and wealth and still doesn't have enough to eat, they're all in poverty, regardless of the lack of inequality.
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    Seems like you didn't read that literature after all. You definitely would Understand that ownership also comes in the form of owning rentals, mortgages, and not just owner occupied housing. That ownership is stock and shares with increasing valuations where you require increasing yields - requirements that makes the produce of the companies more expensive to support these valuations - inflation without a basis for salary inflation (as that would make the incomes more equal, which you explicitly forbade). If half the population (your naighbor in you analogy) amassed significant wealth, it most certainly would materially change your wealth and make you poor - their money would gravitate to equity, yours and your kids equity. Literally making your poor.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      It sounds like what I missed it isn't worth reading. Arguing poverty is essentially a relative measure of wealth or somehow other's wealth, even unexploited or unused wealth, somehow makes everyone poor with the sudden knowledge that it exists? I am interested in economics here, not philosophy.
      - tossandthrow 2y ago
        The books that touches exactly that ideas are amongst other * "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" - Thomas Piketty * "The Spirit Level" - Wilkinson & Pickett * "The Price of Inequality" - Joseph Stiglitz However, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if none of these authors ring a bell. But is seems like you are perfectly able to articulate the ideas - just not to internalize them. Yet.
        WalterBright 2y ago
        How is Cuba doing with all that equality? Maybe read: "Free To Choose" - Milton Friedman ?
        tossandthrow 2y ago

WalterBright 2y ago

I've read about societies where everyone is equal. They're all hellscapes.