3 ms·

I personally think we should resist the temptation to separate out values from the discussion. Like, even if it was the case that some extremely high-level of i

I personally think we should resist the temptation to separate out values from the discussion. Like, even if it was the case that some extremely high-level of inequality turned out to be "optimal" in some GDP-maximizing way, the question still ought to hinge on some notion of fairness or justice (in my view). (Although, I guess if your metric is "citizen satisfaction" maybe that's not as terrible). In any case, there are lots of case studies showing what happens at the extreme inequality end of the spectrum. As I mentioned in another comment, my favorites come from Piketty "Capital in the 21st Century" and Acemoglu & Robinson "Why Nations Fail". In the latter, the case study on the rise and fall of Venice is particularly fascinating - huge economic growth due to inclusive economic institutions that promoted social mobility, followed by a downturn once the aristocracy moved to entrench their own interests at society's expense. This seems to be the central thesis of the book, although I'm only a few chapters in. The parallels with modern US politics are pretty hard to ignore though.

fxwin 2y ago
I haven't read the examples you mentioned, do they point toward the source of the instability being extreme inequality, or the lower (economic) classes being unable to survive in dignified conditions? (read: can we tolerate great inequality if it comes with increased standards of living for everyone?)
- angusturner 2y ago
  I mean, it seems possible that with greater absolute wealth people might tolerate greater relative inequality but like … why run the experiment? Anyway, that’s the path we are on - Piketty doesn’t hazard a guess about if/when society collapse, IIRC the point is just that things will only continue to get more unequal unless there’s a major crisis or some political intervention (e.g wealth or inheritance taxes - imagine trying to get the US to agree to that lol). Also you can’t ignore relative inequality because wealth is strongly coupled to political power/influence. Look at the head of DOGE - he spent $300m to get himself a top gov role, in charge of regulating his own business and restructuring US gov spending to suit his own whims. In terms of percentages / orders of magnitude it’d be like your avg citizen spending $100 for a top gov role.

fxwin 2y ago

I haven't read the examples you mentioned, do they point toward the source of the instability being extreme inequality, or the lower (economic) classes being unable to survive in dignified conditions? (read: can we tolerate great inequality if it comes with increased standards of living for everyone?)

angusturner 2y ago
I mean, it seems possible that with greater absolute wealth people might tolerate greater relative inequality but like … why run the experiment? Anyway, that’s the path we are on - Piketty doesn’t hazard a guess about if/when society collapse, IIRC the point is just that things will only continue to get more unequal unless there’s a major crisis or some political intervention (e.g wealth or inheritance taxes - imagine trying to get the US to agree to that lol). Also you can’t ignore relative inequality because wealth is strongly coupled to political power/influence. Look at the head of DOGE - he spent $300m to get himself a top gov role, in charge of regulating his own business and restructuring US gov spending to suit his own whims. In terms of percentages / orders of magnitude it’d be like your avg citizen spending $100 for a top gov role.