3 ms·

There's poverty without inequality. In some primitive tribes everyone was poor. When natural adverse conditions hit some regions, also poverty was widespread.

There's poverty without inequality. In some primitive tribes everyone was poor. When natural adverse conditions hit some regions, also poverty was widespread. That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system. I don't think you would consider equal and just that every person could influence justice. The problem is the justice system.

59percentmore 3mo ago
If everyone is poor, there's no poverty, just an ubiquitous state of subsistence. Poverty is always relative to some existing state of abundance. >That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system It's a weakness of any system with overbearing inequality. Equal societies don't face this issue to the same extent because those wronged can mount an equal defense or offense as those doing the wrong, at which point righteousness should prevail.
- argentinian 3mo ago
  You redefined the word poverty there, that's not the common or dictionary definition. Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money: e.g advantageous connections with others, deception, etc. There's corruption among poor people, and rich people also steal from other rich people. An utopic idea of equality blocks the capacity of observing how things work.
  - 59percentmore 3mo ago
    >You redefined the word poverty there, that's not the common or dictionary definition. He says, without citation. >Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money No one says that wealth equality leads to an absolutely equal society; that's a straw man. What is incontrovertibly true, and empirically proven to be so, is that societies that are more equal in terms of wealth are less unequal socially, and see fewer negative outcomes that can be attributed to any disparity that does exist, wealth or otherwise. This is because we are talking about effects directly downstream of resource allocation, and monetary wealth is the primary way resources are denominated. Maybe if commodities were priced directly in Twitter follower count or bench press, you'd have a point. The poor and rich are not equally corrupt (again, something shown empirically).
    - argentinian 3mo ago
      Dictionaries are easily available. > The poor and rich are not equally corrupt He said, without citation. Also it seems you don't know much about poor people.
      - 59percentmore 2mo ago
        >Dictionaries are easily available. You should use one. >He said, without citation. Also it seems you don't know much about poor people. It is a structural impossibility for a poor person to be as absolutely corrupt from an extrinsic viewpoint as a rich person, as much as it is a physical impossibility for an ant to be as absolutely strong as a bear. You're conflating some measure of (subjective) inner morality with actual effects in the real world. Happy World Cup.
        argentinian 2mo ago
        Look at Ghandi. He was not a millionaire and did a lot of good. In the same way there are poor persons who cause a lot of suffering to others without being rich. As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people
        59percentmore 2mo ago
        I'll give you one thing: you're bold to try to spin a comment like this. There's not a sentence here that isn't a falsehood or working in service of one. Ghandi was not poor. He was a trained lawyer with experience working abroad who adopted some practices in solidarity with people who were actually suffering in poverty. Just because he wasn't a millionaire doesn't mean that he hadn't accrued significant social capital, and the influence over economic capital that this represented. His capacity for good was rooted in this dual capital access; he did not necessarily have a similar capacity for evil, because social capital is not fungible in the same way that economic capital is. But without either form of capital, one's reach is commensurately shortened, so no, such a poor person does not have the same capability to "cause a lot of suffering" as someone who is rich. >As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people Astonishingly, wealth inequality has ballooned to the point that the holdings of the top percent or so so dwarf that of the rest of the planet that it overcomes the population disparity.

59percentmore 3mo ago

If everyone is poor, there's no poverty, just an ubiquitous state of subsistence. Poverty is always relative to some existing state of abundance. >That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system It's a weakness of any system with overbearing inequality. Equal societies don't face this issue to the same extent because those wronged can mount an equal defense or offense as those doing the wrong, at which point righteousness should prevail.

argentinian 3mo ago
You redefined the word poverty there, that's not the common or dictionary definition. Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money: e.g advantageous connections with others, deception, etc. There's corruption among poor people, and rich people also steal from other rich people. An utopic idea of equality blocks the capacity of observing how things work.
- 59percentmore 3mo ago
  >You redefined the word poverty there, that's not the common or dictionary definition. He says, without citation. >Even with wealth equality, as long as there's scarcity, some people would try to gain advantages over others with means different than money No one says that wealth equality leads to an absolutely equal society; that's a straw man. What is incontrovertibly true, and empirically proven to be so, is that societies that are more equal in terms of wealth are less unequal socially, and see fewer negative outcomes that can be attributed to any disparity that does exist, wealth or otherwise. This is because we are talking about effects directly downstream of resource allocation, and monetary wealth is the primary way resources are denominated. Maybe if commodities were priced directly in Twitter follower count or bench press, you'd have a point. The poor and rich are not equally corrupt (again, something shown empirically).
  - argentinian 3mo ago
    Dictionaries are easily available. > The poor and rich are not equally corrupt He said, without citation. Also it seems you don't know much about poor people.
    - 59percentmore 2mo ago
      >Dictionaries are easily available. You should use one. >He said, without citation. Also it seems you don't know much about poor people. It is a structural impossibility for a poor person to be as absolutely corrupt from an extrinsic viewpoint as a rich person, as much as it is a physical impossibility for an ant to be as absolutely strong as a bear. You're conflating some measure of (subjective) inner morality with actual effects in the real world. Happy World Cup.
      - argentinian 2mo ago
        Look at Ghandi. He was not a millionaire and did a lot of good. In the same way there are poor persons who cause a lot of suffering to others without being rich. As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people
        59percentmore 2mo ago
        I'll give you one thing: you're bold to try to spin a comment like this. There's not a sentence here that isn't a falsehood or working in service of one. Ghandi was not poor. He was a trained lawyer with experience working abroad who adopted some practices in solidarity with people who were actually suffering in poverty. Just because he wasn't a millionaire doesn't mean that he hadn't accrued significant social capital, and the influence over economic capital that this represented. His capacity for good was rooted in this dual capital access; he did not necessarily have a similar capacity for evil, because social capital is not fungible in the same way that economic capital is. But without either form of capital, one's reach is commensurately shortened, so no, such a poor person does not have the same capability to "cause a lot of suffering" as someone who is rich. >As the number of poor persons is bigger than the number of rich people, the accumulated potential for good or evil they have, adding their individual evil or good, is probably bigger than the good or evil potential of rich people Astonishingly, wealth inequality has ballooned to the point that the holdings of the top percent or so so dwarf that of the rest of the planet that it overcomes the population disparity.