3 ms·

What if it is not broken, but inevitable?

by JanezStupar 12y ago

matthewmacleod 12y ago
Then you need to speak to a philosopher…
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
There's nothing economically inevitable about spending public subsidy on the rich instead of the poor.
- JanezStupar 12y ago
  How did you get public subsidy into discussion anyway? I have posted a simple question. What if large asset control inequality is inevitable? Is bringing down the wealthy, so that a new class of wealthy takes over and possibly destroying large means of the assets in process benefit society? Thus far that is the biggest outcome generated by previous attempts at decreasing inequality.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >How did you get public subsidy into discussion See sd8f9iu's comment below. For instance: "If congress passes a tax cut for the top 1%, that increases inequality, not because some group has suddenly "found a way to farm more efficiently" That is, public subsidy is naturally a part of the discussion. >What if large asset control inequality is inevitable? There is nothing "inevitable" about asset control because there is nothing "inevitable" about our economic system. It is all a function of the choices that we make, so you are begging the question to some degree. Some of the choices are related to, say, tax-policy, as noted. But, the system itself is one that we have constructed from the ground up to allocate resources (from property rights to market function to fiat currency). We've created ALL of the rules from whole cloth, so how can we turn around and say, "well, that's inevitable", as if nature has decided? >Is bringing down the wealthy, so that a new class of wealthy takes over... This is a strawman similar to monkeypiza's comment above. "Bringing down the wealthy", creating a new class of wealthy that "takes over", etc. are not the stated desire or inevitable result of making the system more equitable. It's not a binary proposition. When we have, say, tax code that favors capital over labor, while we simultaneously assault unionization, the outcome is clearly skewed in one direction. Surely, you see that these factors are out of balance in disfavor of one group. And, if so (and your interest is in fairness), then you would have to flip your original argument in the other direction.
  - noobermin 12y ago
    First off, I have seen no evidence that that is the "biggest outcome." Also, how do you know such things are inevitable? I see no evidence that is true either.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    >How did you get public subsidy into discussion anyway? Consider all the wealth that comes from natural resources, often extracted from state-owned lands. Consider the intellectual property policies that create wealth out of ideas by state fiat. Consider fiscal and monetary policies deliberately aimed at ensuring the health of the financial, insurance, and real-estate sector. That is how.

What if it is not broken, but inevitable?

matthewmacleod 12y ago

Then you need to speak to a philosopher…

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

There's nothing economically inevitable about spending public subsidy on the rich instead of the poor.

JanezStupar 12y ago
How did you get public subsidy into discussion anyway? I have posted a simple question. What if large asset control inequality is inevitable? Is bringing down the wealthy, so that a new class of wealthy takes over and possibly destroying large means of the assets in process benefit society? Thus far that is the biggest outcome generated by previous attempts at decreasing inequality.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >How did you get public subsidy into discussion See sd8f9iu's comment below. For instance: "If congress passes a tax cut for the top 1%, that increases inequality, not because some group has suddenly "found a way to farm more efficiently" That is, public subsidy is naturally a part of the discussion. >What if large asset control inequality is inevitable? There is nothing "inevitable" about asset control because there is nothing "inevitable" about our economic system. It is all a function of the choices that we make, so you are begging the question to some degree. Some of the choices are related to, say, tax-policy, as noted. But, the system itself is one that we have constructed from the ground up to allocate resources (from property rights to market function to fiat currency). We've created ALL of the rules from whole cloth, so how can we turn around and say, "well, that's inevitable", as if nature has decided? >Is bringing down the wealthy, so that a new class of wealthy takes over... This is a strawman similar to monkeypiza's comment above. "Bringing down the wealthy", creating a new class of wealthy that "takes over", etc. are not the stated desire or inevitable result of making the system more equitable. It's not a binary proposition. When we have, say, tax code that favors capital over labor, while we simultaneously assault unionization, the outcome is clearly skewed in one direction. Surely, you see that these factors are out of balance in disfavor of one group. And, if so (and your interest is in fairness), then you would have to flip your original argument in the other direction.
- noobermin 12y ago
  First off, I have seen no evidence that that is the "biggest outcome." Also, how do you know such things are inevitable? I see no evidence that is true either.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >How did you get public subsidy into discussion anyway? Consider all the wealth that comes from natural resources, often extracted from state-owned lands. Consider the intellectual property policies that create wealth out of ideas by state fiat. Consider fiscal and monetary policies deliberately aimed at ensuring the health of the financial, insurance, and real-estate sector. That is how.