4 ms·
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 n
by 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 agoIt 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 agoThe 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 agoHow is Cuba doing with all that equality? Maybe read: "Free To Choose" - Milton Friedman ?
- tossandthrow 2y agoI never proposed any single way to achieve equality. Even Friedman also agrees with the ideas that I propose: Friedman believes in a basic safety net that ensures that you have basic necessities. The key as that your secured income is big enough that you can pay for a roof, food and clothes. My point is that this alone puts a upper bound to the amount of inequality you can have.
- WalterBright 2y ago> 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. That sounds like the "wealth is a fixed pie" theory, where for one person to have more, another must have less. The proof that is false comes from the history of the US. In the 19th century, it was populated by poor immigrants with nothing more than a suitcase. The US turned into a global superpower. How do you explain that with the fixed pie theory?
- tossandthrow 2y ago> That sounds like the "wealth is a fixed pie" theory, where for one person to have more, another must have less. Dare to elaborate? And absolutely not. If anything, on the contrary, I say that equality is a way to make the pie bigger.
- WalterBright 2y ago> I say that equality is a way to make the pie bigger. Your idea has been tried, literally tens of thousands of times. The pie got smaller. Just in the US alone, 20,000 communes have been formed (they're not illegal). They all failed. Even the diehard communists can't stand living in a commune and sharing equally.
- tossandthrow 2y agoWhat idea? I never proposed any system to obtain equality, merely pointed out that equality as a quality in itself is worth striving for. A lot of people would argue that the American-style capitalism way is the way to obtain equality and I would not oppose that