4 ms·

My point is that this isn't uncommon at all. I know tons of people who have nothing. Literally nothing other than things like, I dunno, their cell phone and cl

My point is that this isn't uncommon at all. I know tons of people who have nothing. Literally nothing other than things like, I dunno, their cell phone and clothes. _Anyone_ has more than a thousand of them combined. If you choose the correct group of "the least well off" then it's like trying to divide by zero.

exceptione 2y ago
This point is futile though. Changes are high that your country is a kleptocracy or dictatorship, or has a very weak system. Huge wealth imbalance is a STRONG MARKER of malformed governance. A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Desperate people do not have the "luxury" of being a democratic participant. That is why autocracies love miserable, poor people.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Income inequality isn't that high though, is it? The rich generally try to do everything they can to avoid income as income is taxed. In the US, somewhere around 20% of the population are in the top 1% when observed over time.
  - exceptione 2y ago
    > Income inequality isn't that high though Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. Why would we continue to fool ourself? 20% of the population in the top 1% sounds really bad for the other 80%. But then again, what share of the USA do the top 100 wealthy people own? And this all still sidesteps the question why does one distract themself while the democratic system that should protect them is being eaten alive? Neither False Balance nor Binary Belief Trap is going to save them.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. That doesn't imply a high income or some extreme income inequality, though. There are the usual tricks like amassing wealth and borrowing against it in order to secure access to dollars without needing an income. There is income inequality to some degree. Some people do make more than others. That is undeniably seen in income data. But is the income inequality really that high?
      - exceptione 2y ago
        ok, whether you file your billions as income or as capital does not matter. What matters is 1. in a democracy every vote should be counted equal 2. if just a tiny fraction of the populace has immense financial power 2a. you risk they get to turn that into political power 2b. effectively demolishing point 1 You are now at step 2b. The next steps I would not even mention.
        9rx 2y ago
        > whether you file your billions as income or as capital does not matter. It does matter. We are talking specifically about income inequality. Wealth inequality would be a very different topic. > in a democracy every vote should be counted equal But in a representative democracy you don't normally cast an official vote yourself. Referendums are rare. You only talk to your representative and then rely on him to vote your way at the official vote. The constituents could theoretically cast a formal vote at the local level to provide checks and balances to ensure that the representative is representing when it comes down to the final vote, but that's a lot of work. In theory, representative democracy assumes locals will still talk with each other and any discrepancies will be found even without a formal ballot. In practice, I doubt that happens. Talking to neighbours is still a lot of work. In fact, because democracy is hard work, most people won't ever speak to their representative even once! That is a challenge for democracy as even if you have a perfectly faithful representative, they can only represent those who take the time to say their piece. The perfectly faithful representative is unable to read minds. That is impossible. If you don't talk to them, they can't know what you are thinking. Yes, this does give the wealthy an advantage as: 1. The wealthy tend to be, on average, more confrontational and would enjoy spending all day talking to a representative. They don't consider it the chore the average person does. 2. The wealthy tend to be able to buy time to spend with a representative. They can afford to spend all day talking. And if they don't want to do it personally, they can hire someone to do it for them. This is the inherit flaw of democracy. Even a direct democracy ultimately suffers the same problem of only serving those who can afford to participate. Not everyone buys into democracy being the be all and end all for that reason. But no system is perfect.

exceptione 2y ago

This point is futile though. Changes are high that your country is a kleptocracy or dictatorship, or has a very weak system. Huge wealth imbalance is a STRONG MARKER of malformed governance. A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Desperate people do not have the "luxury" of being a democratic participant. That is why autocracies love miserable, poor people.

9rx 2y ago
> A well functioning democracy has way less income inequality. Income inequality isn't that high though, is it? The rich generally try to do everything they can to avoid income as income is taxed. In the US, somewhere around 20% of the population are in the top 1% when observed over time.
- exceptione 2y ago
  > Income inequality isn't that high though Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. Why would we continue to fool ourself? 20% of the population in the top 1% sounds really bad for the other 80%. But then again, what share of the USA do the top 100 wealthy people own? And this all still sidesteps the question why does one distract themself while the democratic system that should protect them is being eaten alive? Neither False Balance nor Binary Belief Trap is going to save them.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > Last election someone just casually threw around $300.000.000 to buy himself into government. That doesn't imply a high income or some extreme income inequality, though. There are the usual tricks like amassing wealth and borrowing against it in order to secure access to dollars without needing an income. There is income inequality to some degree. Some people do make more than others. That is undeniably seen in income data. But is the income inequality really that high?
    - exceptione 2y ago
      ok, whether you file your billions as income or as capital does not matter. What matters is 1. in a democracy every vote should be counted equal 2. if just a tiny fraction of the populace has immense financial power 2a. you risk they get to turn that into political power 2b. effectively demolishing point 1 You are now at step 2b. The next steps I would not even mention.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        > whether you file your billions as income or as capital does not matter. It does matter. We are talking specifically about income inequality. Wealth inequality would be a very different topic. > in a democracy every vote should be counted equal But in a representative democracy you don't normally cast an official vote yourself. Referendums are rare. You only talk to your representative and then rely on him to vote your way at the official vote. The constituents could theoretically cast a formal vote at the local level to provide checks and balances to ensure that the representative is representing when it comes down to the final vote, but that's a lot of work. In theory, representative democracy assumes locals will still talk with each other and any discrepancies will be found even without a formal ballot. In practice, I doubt that happens. Talking to neighbours is still a lot of work. In fact, because democracy is hard work, most people won't ever speak to their representative even once! That is a challenge for democracy as even if you have a perfectly faithful representative, they can only represent those who take the time to say their piece. The perfectly faithful representative is unable to read minds. That is impossible. If you don't talk to them, they can't know what you are thinking. Yes, this does give the wealthy an advantage as: 1. The wealthy tend to be, on average, more confrontational and would enjoy spending all day talking to a representative. They don't consider it the chore the average person does. 2. The wealthy tend to be able to buy time to spend with a representative. They can afford to spend all day talking. And if they don't want to do it personally, they can hire someone to do it for them. This is the inherit flaw of democracy. Even a direct democracy ultimately suffers the same problem of only serving those who can afford to participate. Not everyone buys into democracy being the be all and end all for that reason. But no system is perfect.