6 ms·

> there have always been rich and poor - and always will be Yes, and Jesus said[1] "ye have the poor always with you." Likewise, there will always be crime, a

by panarky 12y ago

> there have always been rich and poor - and always will be Yes, and Jesus said[1] "ye have the poor always with you." Likewise, there will always be crime, and disease, and suffering. But do you agree that extreme inequality is a bad outcome? That putting more and more wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer monopolists and oligopolists is toxic to democracy and freedom? If so, then working to reduce extreme inequality is a noble cause just like reducing crime, disease and suffering is worthwhile. Even if these maladies will always be with us. [1] http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/26.htm#6 http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/26.htm#6

nugget 12y ago
Let's say I live in a 1000 sq ft house and everyone else in my town lives in a 500 sq ft house; there is a certain level of inequality. Years pass, the economy rumbles on, we invent new products and more efficient services, and now I live in a 5000 sq ft mcmansion, and everybody else lives in 1000 sq ft houses. Inequality has increased, but the net standard of living has increased as well. Objectively, everyone is better off. Of course, some people may feel poorer because now they see the mcmansion on the hill and wonder why they don't live in that level of luxury (which didn't even exist before). Most economists seem to credit capitalism with the extreme advancements in quality of life, even for the poorest citizens, in first world economies. Sometimes the problem isn't inequality but envy and jealousy - I believe the Bible speaks to these two emotions as well.
- shiven 12y ago
  ... now I live in a 5000 sq ft mcmansion, and everybody else lives in 1000 sq ft houses. So what did you do so special that you get a 5-fold increase in your living area and what did others do so wrong that they got a 2-fold increase only? Sometimes the problem isn't inequality but envy and jealousy - I believe the Bible speaks to these two emotions as well. The part that grinds on the human psyche is just a plain old sense of fairness and justice. Why muddy it up with religion?
  - timtas 12y ago
    If I experience a 2-fold increase, and it's "grinding on my psyche" that that someone else got a 5-fold increase, you can bet it's because someone with something to gain is whispering discontent into my ear.
    - shiven 12y ago
      Or, I see the ever-widening gap with my own eyes? Not requiring the use of my ears at all.
- jljljl 12y ago
  This is not how inequality has developed, however. If you look at the changes of real in come between the top percentile income brackets vs. the median percentile income bracket, top incomes have grown dramatically while median to lower incomes have stagnated. It's also challenging to just look at consumption and assume everyone is the same. Consumption levels might be stable, but the lower income brackets may be taking on more debt to finance that consumption. Additionally, as Pikketty points out, a lot of the spending/benefit gap between higher and lower incomes has emerged in categories like education and healthcare, which is not as easy to track by looking at people's houses or a consumption based standard of living.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  IT's just as likely that people will still be in 500 square foot houses or that most of them will have been subdivided into 250 foot apartments while a small number of people have bought 2000 foot houses. People certainly do not always end up better in absolute terms. Furthermore, relative gains matter because they say something an individual's economic standing in society. Your average person's quality of life might have improved significantly compared to a generation ago, but so has that of everyone else, with whom one is in economic competition. It's great than an iPad of 2014 is many, many times more powerful and costs less than a Mac of 1984, but having a Mac in 1984 gave you a significant economic edge, whereas owning an iPad today just means that you're not poor. Notwithstanding the enormous technical superiority of the current device, its economic utility depends on how well you can leverage it in today's economy, not of an earlier one where such a device would have been miraculous and allowed you to take over a small country.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    If you believe people have not ended up better in absolute terms, what good or service do they have less of today than in the past?
- MisterBastahrd 12y ago
  Now let's say you have 5 times the political influence. Is everyone still better off, or just you?
yummyfajitas 12y ago
You are conflating "extreme inequality" and "putting more and more wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer monopolists and oligopolists". They are not necessarily the same thing. Since inequality does not intrinsically harm anyone (unlike crime and disease), we can only evaluate the nobility of reducing inequality by it's consequences. So what, pray tell, are the intrinsically harmful consequences of inequality?
jessaustin 12y ago
Jesus said "ye have the poor always with you." I'm not a Christian anymore so I care less than I once would have, but your biblical interpretation is goofy. (It may still be common?) The context of that statement by Jesus was that he had just gotten a nice rubdown with an expensive oil, and people criticized the nice lady who gave him the rubdown for wasting money that could have been given to a soup kitchen. Jesus told them not to sweat it because he only had so much time left in which to receive rubdowns, while the homeless dudes weren't going anywhere. The very next sentence in the text says, "but you will not always have me."
alexeisadeski3 12y ago
Wealth does not equal political power in our world. The Bushes and Clintons did not derive political power from wealth. Likewise, their great political power does not bestow upon them great wealth (though they certainly are wealthy, they're not in the same universe of, say, Donald Sterling). And those with wealth, such as the much discussed Koch brothers? Their influence on policy seems to be near zero. Bill Gates had his company dragged through the mud several times.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The Bushes and Clintons did not derive political power from wealth. In the latter case that's pretty clearly true, at least as to their own wealth (as the Clintons weren't particularly wealthy independently of their political success), in the former case, not so much.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  You're right, but lack of wealth does correlate with an absence of political power. Bill Gates having his company dragged through the mud didn't exactly result in ruin for himself or his shareholders, just a deceleration in their rate of gain. I don't agree that the Koch's influence on policy is near-zero, though nor do I think they have the entire GOP in their pocket as the Democrats like to imagine. They're not stupid, they expect a return on their political investment. I'm guessing they've done OK out of subsidies, if nothing else. I don't mean to be partisan here, you couold say the same thing about various union groups.
- pyoung 12y ago
  The Koch bothers essentially own an entire political party. While their political contributions and influence has not resulted in any major changes in policy and legislation in recent years, they have successfully prevented a popular (at time of election) democratic president from making any major impact on policy. After the 2012 elections, a lot of press was written about how much money was spent on Republican elections and how little success resulted. But if you look at the House of Representatives, despite the fact that overall, more votes were democratic, the Republicans still walked away with a clear majority of seats thanks to redistricting. And of course, the majority in the house allows Republicans to obstruct just about anything. If the Koch brothers weren't getting a return on their political contributions, I highly doubt they would continue to do so. After the recession there was a big push for wall st regulation, higher taxes on the 1%, and increases in welfare program funding, and yet nothing meaningful came from it despite popular support. My guess is the Koch brothers consider that a success.
timtas 12y ago
No, "working to reduce inequality" is most certainly NOT a noble cause. Working to increase prosperity, especially of the poorest, that is the noble cause. We have seen again and again that policies, programs and revolutions aimed at "reducing inequality" succeed only in increasing the misery of all and especially the poor who suffer the most from any absolute declines. Those who perpetrate such evil on mankind always seem take their failure well, resting easy on the nobility of their intentions. In their own minds, their moral rightness excuses their mathematical error. They believe output to be an independent variable, immune from effect by their policies. But far from immune, it is hypersensitive. We have known for a very very long time that the type of order that causes the prosperity of mankind to shoot skyward, enriching all in absolute terms, can also, to our moral horror, enrich some more than others. Our graphs an charts usually fail to show that it also greatly increases mobility; hardly anyone stays poor across generations. The only thing that can keep people poor are programs designed to reduce inequality. Of course, there are certain policies that do create inequalities which could be unwound without shrinking output. To name a couple: debasement of money by central banks, corporatism (cronyism + bailouts). These simply transfer wealth from poor to rich without creating any value.

by panarky 12y ago

nugget 12y ago

Let's say I live in a 1000 sq ft house and everyone else in my town lives in a 500 sq ft house; there is a certain level of inequality. Years pass, the economy rumbles on, we invent new products and more efficient services, and now I live in a 5000 sq ft mcmansion, and everybody else lives in 1000 sq ft houses. Inequality has increased, but the net standard of living has increased as well. Objectively, everyone is better off. Of course, some people may feel poorer because now they see the mcmansion on the hill and wonder why they don't live in that level of luxury (which didn't even exist before). Most economists seem to credit capitalism with the extreme advancements in quality of life, even for the poorest citizens, in first world economies. Sometimes the problem isn't inequality but envy and jealousy - I believe the Bible speaks to these two emotions as well.

shiven 12y ago
... now I live in a 5000 sq ft mcmansion, and everybody else lives in 1000 sq ft houses. So what did you do so special that you get a 5-fold increase in your living area and what did others do so wrong that they got a 2-fold increase only? Sometimes the problem isn't inequality but envy and jealousy - I believe the Bible speaks to these two emotions as well. The part that grinds on the human psyche is just a plain old sense of fairness and justice. Why muddy it up with religion?
- timtas 12y ago
  If I experience a 2-fold increase, and it's "grinding on my psyche" that that someone else got a 5-fold increase, you can bet it's because someone with something to gain is whispering discontent into my ear.
  - shiven 12y ago
    Or, I see the ever-widening gap with my own eyes? Not requiring the use of my ears at all.
jljljl 12y ago
This is not how inequality has developed, however. If you look at the changes of real in come between the top percentile income brackets vs. the median percentile income bracket, top incomes have grown dramatically while median to lower incomes have stagnated. It's also challenging to just look at consumption and assume everyone is the same. Consumption levels might be stable, but the lower income brackets may be taking on more debt to finance that consumption. Additionally, as Pikketty points out, a lot of the spending/benefit gap between higher and lower incomes has emerged in categories like education and healthcare, which is not as easy to track by looking at people's houses or a consumption based standard of living.
anigbrowl 12y ago
IT's just as likely that people will still be in 500 square foot houses or that most of them will have been subdivided into 250 foot apartments while a small number of people have bought 2000 foot houses. People certainly do not always end up better in absolute terms. Furthermore, relative gains matter because they say something an individual's economic standing in society. Your average person's quality of life might have improved significantly compared to a generation ago, but so has that of everyone else, with whom one is in economic competition. It's great than an iPad of 2014 is many, many times more powerful and costs less than a Mac of 1984, but having a Mac in 1984 gave you a significant economic edge, whereas owning an iPad today just means that you're not poor. Notwithstanding the enormous technical superiority of the current device, its economic utility depends on how well you can leverage it in today's economy, not of an earlier one where such a device would have been miraculous and allowed you to take over a small country.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  If you believe people have not ended up better in absolute terms, what good or service do they have less of today than in the past?
MisterBastahrd 12y ago
Now let's say you have 5 times the political influence. Is everyone still better off, or just you?

yummyfajitas 12y ago

You are conflating "extreme inequality" and "putting more and more wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer monopolists and oligopolists". They are not necessarily the same thing. Since inequality does not intrinsically harm anyone (unlike crime and disease), we can only evaluate the nobility of reducing inequality by it's consequences. So what, pray tell, are the intrinsically harmful consequences of inequality?

jessaustin 12y ago

Jesus said "ye have the poor always with you." I'm not a Christian anymore so I care less than I once would have, but your biblical interpretation is goofy. (It may still be common?) The context of that statement by Jesus was that he had just gotten a nice rubdown with an expensive oil, and people criticized the nice lady who gave him the rubdown for wasting money that could have been given to a soup kitchen. Jesus told them not to sweat it because he only had so much time left in which to receive rubdowns, while the homeless dudes weren't going anywhere. The very next sentence in the text says, "but you will not always have me."

alexeisadeski3 12y ago

Wealth does not equal political power in our world. The Bushes and Clintons did not derive political power from wealth. Likewise, their great political power does not bestow upon them great wealth (though they certainly are wealthy, they're not in the same universe of, say, Donald Sterling). And those with wealth, such as the much discussed Koch brothers? Their influence on policy seems to be near zero. Bill Gates had his company dragged through the mud several times.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> The Bushes and Clintons did not derive political power from wealth. In the latter case that's pretty clearly true, at least as to their own wealth (as the Clintons weren't particularly wealthy independently of their political success), in the former case, not so much.
anigbrowl 12y ago
You're right, but lack of wealth does correlate with an absence of political power. Bill Gates having his company dragged through the mud didn't exactly result in ruin for himself or his shareholders, just a deceleration in their rate of gain. I don't agree that the Koch's influence on policy is near-zero, though nor do I think they have the entire GOP in their pocket as the Democrats like to imagine. They're not stupid, they expect a return on their political investment. I'm guessing they've done OK out of subsidies, if nothing else. I don't mean to be partisan here, you couold say the same thing about various union groups.
pyoung 12y ago
The Koch bothers essentially own an entire political party. While their political contributions and influence has not resulted in any major changes in policy and legislation in recent years, they have successfully prevented a popular (at time of election) democratic president from making any major impact on policy. After the 2012 elections, a lot of press was written about how much money was spent on Republican elections and how little success resulted. But if you look at the House of Representatives, despite the fact that overall, more votes were democratic, the Republicans still walked away with a clear majority of seats thanks to redistricting. And of course, the majority in the house allows Republicans to obstruct just about anything. If the Koch brothers weren't getting a return on their political contributions, I highly doubt they would continue to do so. After the recession there was a big push for wall st regulation, higher taxes on the 1%, and increases in welfare program funding, and yet nothing meaningful came from it despite popular support. My guess is the Koch brothers consider that a success.

timtas 12y ago

No, "working to reduce inequality" is most certainly NOT a noble cause. Working to increase prosperity, especially of the poorest, that is the noble cause. We have seen again and again that policies, programs and revolutions aimed at "reducing inequality" succeed only in increasing the misery of all and especially the poor who suffer the most from any absolute declines. Those who perpetrate such evil on mankind always seem take their failure well, resting easy on the nobility of their intentions. In their own minds, their moral rightness excuses their mathematical error. They believe output to be an independent variable, immune from effect by their policies. But far from immune, it is hypersensitive. We have known for a very very long time that the type of order that causes the prosperity of mankind to shoot skyward, enriching all in absolute terms, can also, to our moral horror, enrich some more than others. Our graphs an charts usually fail to show that it also greatly increases mobility; hardly anyone stays poor across generations. The only thing that can keep people poor are programs designed to reduce inequality. Of course, there are certain policies that do create inequalities which could be unwound without shrinking output. To name a couple: debasement of money by central banks, corporatism (cronyism + bailouts). These simply transfer wealth from poor to rich without creating any value.