2 ms·

Saying "non-uniform distribution" doesn't actually purvey any insight or mathematical "truth" and reveals almost nothing about the actual distribution - other t

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