3 ms·
Not at all dense. It’s axiomatic that as societal wealth increases so does the potential for wealth inequality, and in a capitalist system it is a given that in
by eduction 4mo ago
Not at all dense. It’s axiomatic that as societal wealth increases so does the potential for wealth inequality, and in a capitalist system it is a given that inequality will also actually increase.
Perfectly reasonable to debate if there is too much wealth inequality but just hand waving at its mere existence doesn’t add anything to the discussion. The person you’re replying to was calling this out. Ironically, you’re trying to shut down the discussion in the name of perpetuating it.
Maybe you’d like to explain how you think about wealth inequality, since you say you’re interested in a more freely flowing discussion. I’m all ears.
- tadfisher 4mo agoI had assumed the parent was ragebaiting with the explicit redefinition of "wealth inequality" as "creating wealth". Is that the definition you're operating under?
- eduction 4mo agoThat's not my memory of the post but it's gone now. My second sentence sums up my thoughts in the area, but I never suggest simply equating one word with another, nor do I use the term "creating wealth." Still, I can rephrase my contention: In a basically capitalist society, growing societal aggregate wealth necessarily grows inequality. Even a Nordic welfare state, which many (including me) hold up as a robust way to promote income equality, is going to show more variance in the size of pie pieces as the size of the pie grows (even when you account for taxes).