3 ms·

Its well covered in scholarly literature that inequality reduce growth, health and social mobility, and increase violent crime. The naturalness of is meaningles

by tokai 2y ago

Its well covered in scholarly literature that inequality reduce growth, health and social mobility, and increase violent crime. The naturalness of is meaningless, pneumonia is natural too.

rayiner 2y ago
The link between inequality and crime is a maybe: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X23003388 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X2... “To address this puzzle, I conducted a meta-analysis based on 1,341 estimates drawn from 43 studies in economics journals. The findings indicate a statistically significant but economically insignificant true effect of inequality on crime, ranging between 0.007 and 0.123 using UWLS FAT-PET and advanced methods. In essence, if there is an impact of inequality on crime, it is, at best, minimal.”
Y_Y 2y ago
I'm not invoking the naturalistic fallacy, I'm saying that without external intervention economies will tend towards a non-uniform distribution of wealth. If you really desired to have everyone have the same amount of wealth you'd have to continually redistribute it, at some cost. I don't know what exact scholarly literature you're referring to, but I'd guess that they're talking about local properties, i.e. starting from where we are increasing inequality would decrease growth etc. On the other hand we know from history that technological and social innovation comes for production surpluses and specialisation allowing innovation. Taxing subsistence farmers to pay scientists and philosophers is cruel, but it seems to be how societal progress comes about. If you accept that (hopefully anodyne) premise then you'll agree that starting from relative wealth equality we can (long term) increase growth and social mobility and overall wellbeing by increasing inequality.
- tokai 2y ago
  >I'm not invoking the naturalistic fallacy But you are.

by tokai 2y ago

Its well covered in scholarly literature that inequality reduce growth, health and social mobility, and increase violent crime. The naturalness of is meaningless, pneumonia is natural too.

rayiner 2y ago

The link between inequality and crime is a maybe: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X23003388 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X2... “To address this puzzle, I conducted a meta-analysis based on 1,341 estimates drawn from 43 studies in economics journals. The findings indicate a statistically significant but economically insignificant true effect of inequality on crime, ranging between 0.007 and 0.123 using UWLS FAT-PET and advanced methods. In essence, if there is an impact of inequality on crime, it is, at best, minimal.”

Y_Y 2y ago

I'm not invoking the naturalistic fallacy, I'm saying that without external intervention economies will tend towards a non-uniform distribution of wealth. If you really desired to have everyone have the same amount of wealth you'd have to continually redistribute it, at some cost. I don't know what exact scholarly literature you're referring to, but I'd guess that they're talking about local properties, i.e. starting from where we are increasing inequality would decrease growth etc. On the other hand we know from history that technological and social innovation comes for production surpluses and specialisation allowing innovation. Taxing subsistence farmers to pay scientists and philosophers is cruel, but it seems to be how societal progress comes about. If you accept that (hopefully anodyne) premise then you'll agree that starting from relative wealth equality we can (long term) increase growth and social mobility and overall wellbeing by increasing inequality.

tokai 2y ago
>I'm not invoking the naturalistic fallacy But you are.