4 ms·

Nothing in the article explains why "economic inequality" is a bad thing. Which seems to be a logical pre-requisite to declaring it to be "worse than you think

Nothing in the article explains why "economic inequality" is a bad thing. Which seems to be a logical pre-requisite to declaring it to be "worse than you think".

ryandrake 12y ago
It's not necessary. Economic inequality is widely considered a social ill.
- sokoloff 12y ago
  The Earth was once widely considered to be flat.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  That's assuming the thing you want to prove. (I'm sure there's a Latin term for that, but I don't remember it.) It's a logical error that Margaret Thatcher blew apart beautifully probably before you were even born. (Bing the video.)
sgift 12y ago
"Nothing in the article explains why it is a bad thing that x. Which seems to be a logical pre-requisite to declaring it to be 'worse than you think'" It's quite simple: Some things you have to accept as a given, it's a shared social norm. No one will bother to write a paragraph why rape is bad each time an article about rape is written, no one will bother to write a paragraph why police brutality is bad each time an article about police brutality is written and no one will bother to explain why "economic inequality" (i.e. some people starve while others live in luxury) is bad. It would be cumbersome and tiring for most readers for the sake of a tiny minority to write articles in the style you seem to prefer.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  If you have twice as much as I do, and both of us see our real wealth doubled, we would undeniably both be richer and happier. However, the entirely abstract, purely-on-paper metric "economic inequality" would also double. That, in a nutshell, is why the premise is dubious. If you would argue for sacrificing real-life prosperity in order to prioritize a purely abstract "KPI", you have to prove it. Margaret Thatcher had the last word on this: https://youtu.be/rv5t6rC6yvg https://youtu.be/rv5t6rC6yvg Worth a watch.

Nothing in the article explains why "economic inequality" is a bad thing. Which seems to be a logical pre-requisite to declaring it to be "worse than you think".

ryandrake 12y ago

It's not necessary. Economic inequality is widely considered a social ill.

sokoloff 12y ago
The Earth was once widely considered to be flat.
joeclark77 12y ago
That's assuming the thing you want to prove. (I'm sure there's a Latin term for that, but I don't remember it.) It's a logical error that Margaret Thatcher blew apart beautifully probably before you were even born. (Bing the video.)

sgift 12y ago

"Nothing in the article explains why it is a bad thing that x. Which seems to be a logical pre-requisite to declaring it to be 'worse than you think'" It's quite simple: Some things you have to accept as a given, it's a shared social norm. No one will bother to write a paragraph why rape is bad each time an article about rape is written, no one will bother to write a paragraph why police brutality is bad each time an article about police brutality is written and no one will bother to explain why "economic inequality" (i.e. some people starve while others live in luxury) is bad. It would be cumbersome and tiring for most readers for the sake of a tiny minority to write articles in the style you seem to prefer.

joeclark77 12y ago
If you have twice as much as I do, and both of us see our real wealth doubled, we would undeniably both be richer and happier. However, the entirely abstract, purely-on-paper metric "economic inequality" would also double. That, in a nutshell, is why the premise is dubious. If you would argue for sacrificing real-life prosperity in order to prioritize a purely abstract "KPI", you have to prove it. Margaret Thatcher had the last word on this: https://youtu.be/rv5t6rC6yvg https://youtu.be/rv5t6rC6yvg Worth a watch.