3 ms·
Don't look at inequality from a justice perspective. Justice is a moral definition, and highly volatile, so the discussion would be endless. Look at it from a s
by sergiosgc 14y ago
Don't look at inequality from a justice perspective. Justice is a moral definition, and highly volatile, so the discussion would be endless. Look at it from a society efficiency point of view.
From an efficiency point of view, some inequality is interesting. You need to aggregate some capital for investments to occur, you need rich people for high risk investments to be possible. However, as in most systems, there is an optimum point. Beyond a certain level of inequality, the system becomes less efficient.
Herein lies the problem with the job creators argument. It is not fundamentally wrong, but it is wrong for the current level of inequality. We are past the optimum and, for society and the economy to gain efficiency, inequality must be reduced.
- sageikosa 14y ago> Herein lies the problem with the job creators argument. It is not fundamentally wrong, but it is wrong for the current level of inequality. We are past the optimum and, for society and the economy to gain efficiency, inequality must be reduced. Are you suggesting we get rid of the unemployed? That would certainly increase "society efficiency", I think (not sure how we measure that again). But if we want to reduce society to numbers, its easier to get larger swings in variables if we have smaller population sets to work with. We don't have to get rid of everybody to meet optimal efficiency numbers, because the process of getting rid of people will definitely provide job opportunities for others.
- civilian 14y agoYeahhh, I don't think that's what he was suggesting. You were proving Godwin's Law, right?
- sageikosa 14y agoNo. Since he's advocating chucking morality out the window, I can only assume he had something special and immoral planned (which largely went unexplicitly stated). The most efficient isn't to spread a limited wealth over a large number of people, but to reduce the number of people with little wealth. After all, since we've thrown out the concept of society as a means to protect principles of justice for individuals, we can surely afford to sacrifice some individuals for those lucky enough to be left in the selected set. But you're right, he was probably only suggesting theft.
- sergiosgc 14y agoI suggested nothing of the sort. Your comment is a perfect example of the need to discuss inequality outside of the moral framework. Just for reference, in terms of efficiency, you'd want every available worker producing added value. Unless your definition of "get rid" is deport or kill, having unemployment worsens efficiency.
- boomlinde 14y ago> You need to aggregate some capital for investments to occur, you need rich people for high risk investments to be possible. No, you need economic capital for high risk investments to occur. However that capital is distributed is really besides the point. From an efficiency point of view, high risk investments probably shouldn't exist at all. In a production model where goods and services are produced based on what the people need and can realistically attain in a sustainable manner, rather than tricking people into thinking they need things, you don't need to take very high risks.
- sergiosgc 14y ago1) The risk profile of small investors and large investors is different. Large investors, due to the fact that the utility curve of money is not linear, are more prone to risky investments with a part of their portfolio. 2) High risk investments are needed to get out of local maxima. One easy example is electric cars. They're obviously inefficient today, because oil based transportation is a local maximum for the utility of cars. In twenty years? Probably gasoline powered automobiles will be a minority of sales. Another easy example: private space exploration (spaceX, Virgin Galactic and such). Hardly profitable today, probably very profitable in a few decades.