7 ms·

If as you say, corruption requires inequality, and there are inequalities that cannot be leveled, like strength and intelligence, and power, then monetary equal

If as you say, corruption requires inequality, and there are inequalities that cannot be leveled, like strength and intelligence, and power, then monetary equality won't stop corruption. In a hierarchical organization like a government there will be different power levels. So, there are inequalities you cannot level. And you suggest that reducing wealth inequality will make the world better. I don't know, I still believe that aiming at reducing poverty is a better goal. Why? Because without poverty people won't suffer because of survival needs. And without inequality you don't guarantee that there's no poverty. To me, only a very envious person would put equality over reducing poverty.

59percentmore 2mo ago
You're either under the mistaken impression, or have constructed the impression as a strawman to argue against, that any of the concepts and states which we're talking about are absolute and don't exist in a state of flux. But measures of strength, intelligence, and power vary by context, and the goal is not the impossibility of absolute wealth equality (which cannot exist in an energetic economic system). Since money is a fungible asset that can be used to rent or even purchase access to higher levels of strength, intelligence, power, and other inequalities, wealth is an outsize target for reducing inequality broadly. Unless you think a world with locked-in hierarchies is better (and you argue like you do), then reducing wealth inequality clearly allows the world to become less corrupt by giving people a tool to reduce, or even upend, existing power deltas (the source of corruption). >And you suggest that reducing wealth inequality will make the world better. I don't know, I still believe that aiming at reducing poverty is a better goal. They're the same thing. You only refuse to see it because you expect your personal wealth to fall. You jealously guard a dysfunctional status quo for illogical and selfish reasons.
- argentinian 2mo ago
  > They're the same thing That's you opinion and is not an absolute fact. At least you can see that it's debatable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/19/poverty-and-inequality-are-not-the-same-thing-so-lets-try-not-to-confuse-them/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/19/poverty-... And your suppositions about my motives are wrong. Edit: my motives are that I simply believe that they are not the same, just that.
  - 59percentmore 1mo ago
    A Forbes editorial is unconvincing. Tim Worstall is far from a dispassiinate observer; in fact, as an Adam Smith Institute fellow, it's safe to say that he has a major conflict of interest. That reducing wealth inequality makes a more fair and prosperous world for the vast majority of people is about as much of an opinion as saying that reducing pollutant exposure reduces cancer risk. And if you claim that those are "simply" your motives, you're not speaking in good faith.
    - argentinian 1mo ago
      If every side effect of the redistribution measures is taken into account, or if only policies that were tested and proven to work well are applied. I think then that they could have good results. Consider that the URSS and Cuba were about redistributing wealth and it didn't end well there. And yes, those were simply my motives, I also would like everyone to be happy and capable of attending to their basic needs in the world.

59percentmore 2mo ago

You're either under the mistaken impression, or have constructed the impression as a strawman to argue against, that any of the concepts and states which we're talking about are absolute and don't exist in a state of flux. But measures of strength, intelligence, and power vary by context, and the goal is not the impossibility of absolute wealth equality (which cannot exist in an energetic economic system). Since money is a fungible asset that can be used to rent or even purchase access to higher levels of strength, intelligence, power, and other inequalities, wealth is an outsize target for reducing inequality broadly. Unless you think a world with locked-in hierarchies is better (and you argue like you do), then reducing wealth inequality clearly allows the world to become less corrupt by giving people a tool to reduce, or even upend, existing power deltas (the source of corruption). >And you suggest that reducing wealth inequality will make the world better. I don't know, I still believe that aiming at reducing poverty is a better goal. They're the same thing. You only refuse to see it because you expect your personal wealth to fall. You jealously guard a dysfunctional status quo for illogical and selfish reasons.

argentinian 2mo ago
> They're the same thing That's you opinion and is not an absolute fact. At least you can see that it's debatable: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/19/poverty-and-inequality-are-not-the-same-thing-so-lets-try-not-to-confuse-them/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/19/poverty-... And your suppositions about my motives are wrong. Edit: my motives are that I simply believe that they are not the same, just that.
- 59percentmore 1mo ago
  A Forbes editorial is unconvincing. Tim Worstall is far from a dispassiinate observer; in fact, as an Adam Smith Institute fellow, it's safe to say that he has a major conflict of interest. That reducing wealth inequality makes a more fair and prosperous world for the vast majority of people is about as much of an opinion as saying that reducing pollutant exposure reduces cancer risk. And if you claim that those are "simply" your motives, you're not speaking in good faith.
  - argentinian 1mo ago
    If every side effect of the redistribution measures is taken into account, or if only policies that were tested and proven to work well are applied. I think then that they could have good results. Consider that the URSS and Cuba were about redistributing wealth and it didn't end well there. And yes, those were simply my motives, I also would like everyone to be happy and capable of attending to their basic needs in the world.