4 ms·

As long as a more equal distribution of wealth would reduce suffering, we can certainly consider wealth inequality harmful. One would have to have rather alien

by hedges 12y ago

As long as a more equal distribution of wealth would reduce suffering, we can certainly consider wealth inequality harmful. One would have to have rather alien values to think that luxuries for a few are preferable to food and health for all.

apineda 12y ago
Let's look at Venezuela to see how that is implemented. Centralized power is too toxic to be able to distribute anything "fairly".
- scarmig 12y ago
  Or Sweden? I hear it's a dystopian hellhole.
cmdkeen 12y ago
Except if the act of adjusting that distribution causes economic harm you end up with a more equal society where the poor are poorer.
dabrowski 12y ago
> As long as a more equal distribution of wealth would reduce suffering, we can certainly consider wealth inequality harmful. First you would need to prove that. Consider a world with perfect income equality. In such a world, there is no economic incentive to work at all. Second, how do you plan on equalising the income without committing an act of aggression against innocent people? > One would have to have rather alien values to think that luxuries for a few are preferable to food and health for all. That's a false dichotomy. What if, say, everyone gets poorer in the process of making it less desirable to be rich?
- mrottenkolber 12y ago
  > First you would need to prove that. Right. > Consider a world with perfect income equality. In such a world, there is no economic incentive to work at all. Nobody needs an economic incentive to work (please prove me otherwise). In fact, an economic incentive is the only reason we screw other people over and produce shitty work.
  - mrottenkolber 12y ago
    To back up my claim: The birds with the least natural enemies and the richest environment spend the most time mating (which is our built-in incentive to do many great things).
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    > Nobody needs an economic incentive to work (please prove me otherwise). "Nobody does X" is too strong a statement; when you say something like that, the burden is on you to prove it (by asking everyone in the world, for example). I personally know quite a few people who wouldn't work if they didn't need to. It's true that some people don't need an economic incentive to work, but others do.

by hedges 12y ago

apineda 12y ago

Let's look at Venezuela to see how that is implemented. Centralized power is too toxic to be able to distribute anything "fairly".

scarmig 12y ago
Or Sweden? I hear it's a dystopian hellhole.

cmdkeen 12y ago

Except if the act of adjusting that distribution causes economic harm you end up with a more equal society where the poor are poorer.

dabrowski 12y ago

> As long as a more equal distribution of wealth would reduce suffering, we can certainly consider wealth inequality harmful. First you would need to prove that. Consider a world with perfect income equality. In such a world, there is no economic incentive to work at all. Second, how do you plan on equalising the income without committing an act of aggression against innocent people? > One would have to have rather alien values to think that luxuries for a few are preferable to food and health for all. That's a false dichotomy. What if, say, everyone gets poorer in the process of making it less desirable to be rich?

mrottenkolber 12y ago
> First you would need to prove that. Right. > Consider a world with perfect income equality. In such a world, there is no economic incentive to work at all. Nobody needs an economic incentive to work (please prove me otherwise). In fact, an economic incentive is the only reason we screw other people over and produce shitty work.
- mrottenkolber 12y ago
  To back up my claim: The birds with the least natural enemies and the richest environment spend the most time mating (which is our built-in incentive to do many great things).
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  > Nobody needs an economic incentive to work (please prove me otherwise). "Nobody does X" is too strong a statement; when you say something like that, the burden is on you to prove it (by asking everyone in the world, for example). I personally know quite a few people who wouldn't work if they didn't need to. It's true that some people don't need an economic incentive to work, but others do.