3 ms·

While that's true, there's still enough "fixed pies" that inceasing inequality does make people worse off. Land, attention, positions of power, etc. will all be

by TFYS 11mo ago

While that's true, there's still enough "fixed pies" that inceasing inequality does make people worse off. Land, attention, positions of power, etc. will all be taken by the wealthy, because only they can afford those things in an environment of high wealth inequality.

csallen 10mo ago
Partly this is a huge problem. But partly it's intentional. It's a huge problem for the obvious reasons. Nobody wants a country where only the rich people have a say, or have influence, or wield political power, or own all the land. Because this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the rich then bend the rules to favor themselves. For example, I personally think it's ridiculous that we need a lower capital gains income tax rate to "spur investment." Investment was just fine back when capital gains rates were the same as normal income tax rates, and I see this as a way for the rich to just benefit themselves. That said, a system where the wealthy benefit is partly intentional. The whole idea of incentivizing people to earn wealth is that the wealth should be useful. It only works if it's useful. If extra wealth doesn't allow one to buy more land, or exert more power, or gain more attention, or live more comfortably, then it's pointless and does not serve its purposes as an incentive. This is literally the entire point of it. The issue is not that it happened, it's the degree to which it happens. My fear with #1 is that the degree of difference will be too much. This is absolutely something to keep in check. It's a tough problem to solve. But on the flip side, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any political or financial system that we have is going to have some inefficiencies and some disadvantages. My fear with #2 is that people have lost the plot, and believe so firmly in "equality of outcomes" that they can't stomach any amount of inequality. Some inequality is okay! We're never going to have a completely equal world, and that's okay. I had a happy, safe, abundant middle-class upbringing, and it didn't bother me one bit that Bill Gates is a billionaire.
- TFYS 10mo ago
  I think the problem with allowing even a moderate amount of inequality is that over time it'll always lead to large inequality, because after a certain level of comfort the only interesting thing you can do with with wealth is to attempt gain more power and influence, and are even forced to do it because if you don't someone else will. It's like the markets' tendency to consolidate. For example at the beginning we had "low inequlity" media where we had a lot of regional newspapers, but in a competitive system eventually the winners take it all, and now we have only a few large players left. Moderate inequality will be used to increase the inequality, because the people who don't do it will lose to the people who do. I believe the only way forward that won't always lead to large scale war and destruction is to come up with a system that does not allow any amount of concentrated power. That means as close to zero wealth inequality as we can get while keeping a functioning economy. But for that we'd first need better ways to make decisions collectively, as political power can't have any centralization either.
  - csallen 10mo ago
    I don't know if I buy this. The most wealth equality humanity has ever had was probably in the pre-agrarian hunter-gatherer era. It was also undoubtedly one of the more violent times in human history, with homicide rates that dwarfed those of today, and many deaths in war as well. Also, most industries aren't winner-take-all. There is constant disruption, new entrants, etc. Very few huge companies last 100 or even 50 yers. And the vast majority of all companies are small. We have more artists than ever, more entrepreneurs than ever. Media has fragmented more today than ever before. But my biggest concern with thought experiments like this is with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Poverty is decreasing at a rapid rate, quality of life is improving, widespread famine has been largely eliminated, major warfare has maintained historic lows for 70+ years, technology is rapidly bringing education + communication + entertainment + transportation + medicine to more people than ever at cheaper prices than ever. We've essentially solved most of humanity's biggest problems with our current systems. Why press "reset" on all of that, just to eliminate a much smaller problem (some rich people having more than the rest of us)?

by TFYS 11mo ago

csallen 10mo ago

Partly this is a huge problem. But partly it's intentional. It's a huge problem for the obvious reasons. Nobody wants a country where only the rich people have a say, or have influence, or wield political power, or own all the land. Because this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the rich then bend the rules to favor themselves. For example, I personally think it's ridiculous that we need a lower capital gains income tax rate to "spur investment." Investment was just fine back when capital gains rates were the same as normal income tax rates, and I see this as a way for the rich to just benefit themselves. That said, a system where the wealthy benefit is partly intentional. The whole idea of incentivizing people to earn wealth is that the wealth should be useful. It only works if it's useful. If extra wealth doesn't allow one to buy more land, or exert more power, or gain more attention, or live more comfortably, then it's pointless and does not serve its purposes as an incentive. This is literally the entire point of it. The issue is not that it happened, it's the degree to which it happens. My fear with #1 is that the degree of difference will be too much. This is absolutely something to keep in check. It's a tough problem to solve. But on the flip side, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any political or financial system that we have is going to have some inefficiencies and some disadvantages. My fear with #2 is that people have lost the plot, and believe so firmly in "equality of outcomes" that they can't stomach any amount of inequality. Some inequality is okay! We're never going to have a completely equal world, and that's okay. I had a happy, safe, abundant middle-class upbringing, and it didn't bother me one bit that Bill Gates is a billionaire.

TFYS 10mo ago
I think the problem with allowing even a moderate amount of inequality is that over time it'll always lead to large inequality, because after a certain level of comfort the only interesting thing you can do with with wealth is to attempt gain more power and influence, and are even forced to do it because if you don't someone else will. It's like the markets' tendency to consolidate. For example at the beginning we had "low inequlity" media where we had a lot of regional newspapers, but in a competitive system eventually the winners take it all, and now we have only a few large players left. Moderate inequality will be used to increase the inequality, because the people who don't do it will lose to the people who do. I believe the only way forward that won't always lead to large scale war and destruction is to come up with a system that does not allow any amount of concentrated power. That means as close to zero wealth inequality as we can get while keeping a functioning economy. But for that we'd first need better ways to make decisions collectively, as political power can't have any centralization either.
- csallen 10mo ago
  I don't know if I buy this. The most wealth equality humanity has ever had was probably in the pre-agrarian hunter-gatherer era. It was also undoubtedly one of the more violent times in human history, with homicide rates that dwarfed those of today, and many deaths in war as well. Also, most industries aren't winner-take-all. There is constant disruption, new entrants, etc. Very few huge companies last 100 or even 50 yers. And the vast majority of all companies are small. We have more artists than ever, more entrepreneurs than ever. Media has fragmented more today than ever before. But my biggest concern with thought experiments like this is with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Poverty is decreasing at a rapid rate, quality of life is improving, widespread famine has been largely eliminated, major warfare has maintained historic lows for 70+ years, technology is rapidly bringing education + communication + entertainment + transportation + medicine to more people than ever at cheaper prices than ever. We've essentially solved most of humanity's biggest problems with our current systems. Why press "reset" on all of that, just to eliminate a much smaller problem (some rich people having more than the rest of us)?