5 ms·

>In any kind of non-uniform distribution of any good Not in any kind. It is absolutely the case, if there's mostly untaxed generational wealth transfer. Imagin

>In any kind of non-uniform distribution of any good Not in any kind. It is absolutely the case, if there's mostly untaxed generational wealth transfer. Imagine this - you are born in this world with nothing. And every parcel of land and property is owned by somebody - somebody who with high likelihood inherited it or hundreds of millions or billions of assets on spawn. Now obviously, you can inherit all sorts of other factors too - like very valuable social networks and a set of trade skills carefully passed down and tought. But even neglecting those, the largely untaxed generational wealth transfer would naturally lead to massive inequalities and disproportionate amounts of wealth concentrated in few families.

fxwin 2y ago
That statement had nothing to do with taxes or inheritance (or any specific financial process in fact). It was simply a (admittedly rather reductive) mathematical statement, which remains true independently of the nature of the underlying good. My point was that pointing out "Top x% own Top x+y% of good z" doesn't say anything meaningful without contextualizing why (if) this is a bad thing, and what x and y should be for a given z.
- Johanx64 2y ago
  Saying "non-uniform distribution" doesn't actually purvey any insight or mathematical "truth" and reveals almost nothing about the actual distribution - other than stating that it's non-uniform (well, duh!). What you are doing - in essence - is making it sound like gigantic economic inequalities and wealth concentrations in hands of few families are some underlying, unavoidable fact of universe. While in reality they are - largely - a result of unlimited, largely untaxed generational wealth transfer. And outcomes of other similar policies. >My point was that pointing out "Top x% own Top x+y% of good z" doesn't say anything meaningful No, it does. It shows just how grossly wealth is increasingly captured by a small amount of people. Depending on what those x, y and z, you can gauge the actual shape of the "non-uniform distribution" and how it changes over time. Which is exactly the point.
  - fxwin 2y ago
    > Saying "non-uniform distribution" doesn't actually purvey any insight or mathematical "truth" and reveals almost nothing about the actual distribution - other than stating that it's non-uniform (well, duh!). I'm not sure if you're aware, but you're arguing my point. Without contextualizing the numbers, the headline tells us only that not everybody has the same amount of X. > It shows just how grossly wealth is increasingly captured by a small amount of people. The sloganeering and lack of explaining which numbers qualify as "gross" and which as acceptible and worth striving for under headlines like this is precisely what I'm criticizing. Is it still gross inequality if the top 10% own 60% of wealth? 50%? 20%?
  - mlrtime 2y ago
    Wealth is not zero sum

fxwin 2y ago

That statement had nothing to do with taxes or inheritance (or any specific financial process in fact). It was simply a (admittedly rather reductive) mathematical statement, which remains true independently of the nature of the underlying good. My point was that pointing out "Top x% own Top x+y% of good z" doesn't say anything meaningful without contextualizing why (if) this is a bad thing, and what x and y should be for a given z.

Johanx64 2y ago
Saying "non-uniform distribution" doesn't actually purvey any insight or mathematical "truth" and reveals almost nothing about the actual distribution - other than stating that it's non-uniform (well, duh!). What you are doing - in essence - is making it sound like gigantic economic inequalities and wealth concentrations in hands of few families are some underlying, unavoidable fact of universe. While in reality they are - largely - a result of unlimited, largely untaxed generational wealth transfer. And outcomes of other similar policies. >My point was that pointing out "Top x% own Top x+y% of good z" doesn't say anything meaningful No, it does. It shows just how grossly wealth is increasingly captured by a small amount of people. Depending on what those x, y and z, you can gauge the actual shape of the "non-uniform distribution" and how it changes over time. Which is exactly the point.
- fxwin 2y ago
  > Saying "non-uniform distribution" doesn't actually purvey any insight or mathematical "truth" and reveals almost nothing about the actual distribution - other than stating that it's non-uniform (well, duh!). I'm not sure if you're aware, but you're arguing my point. Without contextualizing the numbers, the headline tells us only that not everybody has the same amount of X. > It shows just how grossly wealth is increasingly captured by a small amount of people. The sloganeering and lack of explaining which numbers qualify as "gross" and which as acceptible and worth striving for under headlines like this is precisely what I'm criticizing. Is it still gross inequality if the top 10% own 60% of wealth? 50%? 20%?
- mlrtime 2y ago
  Wealth is not zero sum