Is Inequality Good? New concept says "Very much so"

[Darussalam]

Hacks like Cowen shove this drivel out for the sole reason of trying to tell Middle America, "hey look, when policies come around that solely benefit the rich, you guys will some day benefit, I pinky pinky promise!"

Cowen actually rejected the conclusion, funnily enough.

Not because the conclusion's wrong, of course. But because it contradicted his axiomatic principles of valuing basic human rights and redistribution to the poor as an inherently preferable thing.

It's hacks like him who shove signaling drivel like these without actually helping the poor, for sure! If he wants to help the poor he should have supported it yet he doesn't.

Egalitarians are spewing horseshit at best, malice at worst.

[Joohan]

That's untrue, daytrading is rather unprofitable as a whole given that it's mostly a zero-sum game when factoring in all partners involved

It isn't a zero sum game at all.

>hey robots can do the job of these people far better than themselves but we wont fire them en masse because as thirsty for profit as they are we are nice employers
yeah doesnt make sense at all

It makes perfect sense: humans are fucking stupid. In particular, most businesses are run by fucking idiots. Even more specifically, the overwhelming majority of people running businesses have absolutely no idea what their computers are capable of. The people who do mostly automate their own jobs, then spend the next few decades being paid a full time salary to press a button once a week and look busy the rest of the time. I'd say easily a quarter of the employees at businesses I've spent any amount of time in could have been replaced by Excel macros, let alone any actual high-level stuff.

Hold on there -

I'm it, and I can tell you that you are overestimating computer capabilities. Computers work fantastically at simple tasks which and there little chance of error ( like running a conveyor belt ). How, when a problem which cannot be fixed easily and quickly occurs, then the computer will freeze and or fail - seizing possibly an entire line of production because of a single units error. Humans are far more versatile and are capable of advanced problem solving. When problems do occur, their capability to adapt far exceed those of computers.

What is more are the numerous political, economic, moral, and environmental reasons not to automate en masse

[Spindle]

See, I like this strategy - "deflection by condescension", let's call it. The idea is to try and continuously close the door while refusing to actually engage with any of the real points - note how the lead-in is picked out to reply to specifically to avoid the part where I ask for empirical evidence. At the same time, you stonewall - in this case you attempt to justify it with the whole "alleged fallacy" part while avoiding including the post I quoted because then you'd have to realise you ignored two-thirds of my points to scream "wrong!!111!!" without citation at the one you thought you could. It's pretty neat because if it is the last word someone who scans it might actually think you are a poor, beleaguered bastion of rationality amidst a sea of screaming assholes and not, as is actually the case, someone who can't handle being asked for sources.

Oh, but the laziness mode doesn't extend to other people. Well now, isn't that interesting.

It actually does, I'm just not bothering to read walls of text right now. But if you prefer being an ass about it while pulling fallacies out of nowhere to build your high ground then that's okay, dont really care

See how I mean? Continuously close the door and get the last word in, so it scans like you're winning it while trying to express how little you care in the response to the thing you don't care about. But you still replied, just to make sure everyone knows you don't care. Because you don't. Totally. Why would you care? Of course not - see that response which is what someone who doesn't care would write? That makes sure everyone knows you don't care. Because they have to know, otherwise it doesn't work.

Come on, lighten up, you brought your concept to the marketplace of ideas and now you get to defend it. Thems the rules, and I didn't make them did I?

Not really. Under the current scenario the proposal is already workable.

Y'know if I've just called out a deflection and then make a point another, deflecting again is probably bad right? Like, it's literally the first portion of this segment, before I go into the part where rich people don't behave the way you model them. If that's a point you don't want to engage with then you're welcome to not have to, but you need a mode of disengagement which isn't pointing elsewhere and saying "look at that". Even if it's just to say "I disagree but can't find sources to support that viewpoint", you feel me?

I hope you read my comment on it. Part of the decline (estimated at ~1/3rd of it, enough to bend the mild decrease into effective stabilization) can be addressed by correcting the figures on proprietors' income, rather than interpolating it. The bulk of it since the early 00s coincides a lot with the huge surge in unemployment ever since the dotcom crash.

I'm just gonna put something out there, just saying "correct this" doesn't actually make the thing say what you want it to - that's something a lot of flat earthers realise when they try to correct footage of the earth taken from edge-of-atmosphere flights and find that when on the ground the horizon looks concave. In this situation, the concave horizon is googling "BEA calculated labour share" and finding a City University of Hong Kong paper and a US Bureau of Labour Statistics notification piece on how the labour share is actually declining. And look, I get that you might be an economic genius but if you just say "well the horizon is flat if you correct it" I kinda am gonna want evidence beyond your word. Appeal to authority only works if you are appealing to an authority.

[The South Falls]

I think we as a site spend more time going on about fallacy than actually debating.

[Torrocca]

Maybe peddle something that's worth the time to argue against, instead of this dogmatic NeoFeudalist bullshittery you're currently trying to peddle to embolden the pockets of the bourgeoisie.

Given that most people are posting comments that are at least loosely related to the argument, the low-effort issue is with you

And I've made my argument clear that the bullshit you're peddling is nothing more than NeoFeudalist trash. Funny how you haven't once tried to defend against that accusation, huh?

If you're currently, "low-effort mode," or whatever the fuck you're calling it, as you said here:

O shit, this is a new one: deflection by cherry-picking.

No I'm just on low effort mode for the sake of laziness, but if you think that not answering everything you want is cherrypicking then may as well type nothing to avoid further alleged fallacies

Then surely you can respond better to an equally low-effort post to defend against my accusations leveled against your shitty NeoFeudalist garbage, eh?

buddy.

I'm not your buddy.

[Salandriagado]

It isn't a zero sum game at all.



It makes perfect sense: humans are fucking stupid. In particular, most businesses are run by fucking idiots. Even more specifically, the overwhelming majority of people running businesses have absolutely no idea what their computers are capable of. The people who do mostly automate their own jobs, then spend the next few decades being paid a full time salary to press a button once a week and look busy the rest of the time. I'd say easily a quarter of the employees at businesses I've spent any amount of time in could have been replaced by Excel macros, let alone any actual high-level stuff.

Hold on there -

I'm it, and I can tell you that you are overestimating computer capabilities. Computers work fantastically at simple tasks which and there little chance of error ( like running a conveyor belt ). How, when a problem which cannot be fixed easily and quickly occurs, then the computer will freeze and or fail - seizing possibly an entire line of production because of a single units error. Humans are far more versatile and are capable of advanced problem solving. When problems do occur, their capability to adapt far exceed those of computers.

No, I'm not. Because, in particular, I have done it. I've handed people programmes that automate their entire job. Fuck, I did three as a student on work experience.

What is more are the numerous political, economic, moral, and environmental reasons not to automate en masse

Which are entirely irrelevant to the discussion, as you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read it before jumping in.

[The South Falls]

Given that most people are posting comments that are at least loosely related to the argument, the low-effort issue is with you

And I've made my argument clear that the bullshit you're peddling is nothing more than NeoFeudalist trash. Funny how you haven't once tried to defend against that accusation, huh?

If you're currently, "low-effort mode," or whatever the fuck you're calling it, as you said here:

No I'm just on low effort mode for the sake of laziness, but if you think that not answering everything you want is cherrypicking then may as well type nothing to avoid further alleged fallacies

Then surely you can respond better to an equally low-effort post to defend against my accusations leveled against your shitty NeoFeudalist garbage, eh?

buddy.

I'm not your buddy.

The amount of time y'all spend arguing says otherwise.

[Darussalam]

Given that most people are posting comments that are at least loosely related to the argument, the low-effort issue is with you

And I've made my argument clear that the bullshit you're peddling is nothing more than NeoFeudalist trash. Funny how you haven't once tried to defend against that accusation, huh?

Woke: maybe neofeudalism is Actually Good

[Cedoria]

OP forgets to mention South Korea and Japan both grew rich due to US subsidization and weapons trading after WWII, respectively.

Regardless, I am very suspicious, for obvious reasons, of saying that poor people will be richer if they give their money to the rich. Any person with a remotely functioning mind ought to be.


Also, 'good' is a subjective concept. Good for whom? Any concept is good for those who benefit from it. It all depends on the perspective one aligns oneself with.

[Torrocca]

And I've made my argument clear that the bullshit you're peddling is nothing more than NeoFeudalist trash. Funny how you haven't once tried to defend against that accusation, huh?

Woke: maybe neofeudalism is Actually Good

Bespoke: Nah, unless you're a rich baron company owner.

And I've made my argument clear that the bullshit you're peddling is nothing more than NeoFeudalist trash. Funny how you haven't once tried to defend against that accusation, huh?

If you're currently, "low-effort mode," or whatever the fuck you're calling it, as you said here:



Then surely you can respond better to an equally low-effort post to defend against my accusations leveled against your shitty NeoFeudalist garbage, eh?



I'm not your buddy.

The amount of time y'all spend arguing says otherwise.

N-No u, b-baka!

[Nolo gap]

this "new" concept, was old when i was born 70 years ago.

here's a newer concept for you; humans got along just fine for thousands of years before money was invented, and it wasn't by having to drag cows around either.

the inconvenience of poverty is a direct result of making things have to be about money, not anything else.
equality/inequality has nothing to do with it.

nothing 'trickles down' either. and cream ain't the only thing that floats.
that's the way they used to say it before they started calling it trickle down.

pretty obvious other things float considering what has floated to the top here in the u.s.

[Darussalam]

Also, 'good' is a subjective concept. Good for whom? Any concept is good for those who benefit from it. It all depends on the perspective one aligns oneself with.

This is trivially true, yes.

"Good" in this case is "poor people will be wealthier in the long term". Which they will under a regime that redistributes to the rich, relative than one that redistributes to the poor.

"Long term" is the key here. That is, it depends on the social discount rate.

Good is subjective, hence most egalitarian movements have different conception of what's "good". Which does not entail material wealth, but rather elevating the status of marginalized communities (including the poor) as the means of gaining more political power. Egalitarianism is therefore not about improving material well-being of the poor, but about intensifying the zero-sum status competition.

[Valrifell]

I'd like to hop on the bandwagon and reiterate that "trickle down" economics has been a theory for, like, 130 years at this point. This idea is nowhere near "new".

[Torrocca]

I'd like to hop on the bandwagon and reiterate that "trickle down" economics has been a theory for, like, 130 years at this point. This idea is nowhere near "new".

And also that it's been proven wrong in practice. :3

[Diannaoguo]

hi sorry for bad english

this is very unconventional idea, but why do you all write so much 'shit' and 'fuck'? not productive and very disrespectful.

writers have philosophical disagreement about purpose of society. one side sees society in marxist-leninist worldview and believes that purpose of society is provide material wealth to proletariat. other side sees society in capitalist worldview and believes that purpose of society is to protect material wealth and freedom of individual.

each writer, with different philosophical position, chooses different set of facts (very complicated) to justify belief about redistribution. this is dishonest with himself, because his feeling about income inequality is based on 'purpose of society' ideology, and not economic information.

i do not think that no one will change idea because of this conversation, only that you show hot tempers with anonymous because of frustrations in personal problems. maybe i will contribute with discussion of how cause and effect of income inequality has evolved in last 80 years but first we should adopt respectful tone and define social objective.

thank you for sharing game with me

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

"Trickledown"? This idiotic nonsense again? OP, go back to 1985 please. America is literally still suffering from the blight that is "trickle-down economics" to this very day. I'm no Commie - Hell, I'm a God-damn Capitalist as a matter of fact - but any man, woman, or child with a lick of sense will tell you that inequality is not a fucking "good" thing and should be negated as realistically as possible.

Let's not go back to the Middle Ages where the majority of people were stupid, dirty, superstitious, and prone to revolt over non-issues. We're already having trouble with these things as it is.

[Diannaoguo]

any man, woman, or child with a lick of sense will tell you that inequality is not a fucking "good" thing and should be negated as realistically as possible.

your statement uses "everyone knows" logical fallacy, but has no argument for why inequality is not good

most arguments against inequality here are confused about what is inequality and what is poverty.

you can have equality and poverty, like in african jungle tribe
you can have inequailty and poverty, like in india now
you can have some inequality and no poverty, like in sweden
you can have lots of inequality and no poverty, like in america

everyone agrees that it is better for there to be no poverty, because it is inhuman, it causes crime and revolution, and it hurts human capital growth. however poverty no longer exists meaningfully in developed world. everyone has food, access to education and emergency healthcare, even the people who think they are poor have roads, electricity, water and telecommunications

what is the goal of society? why is it necessary for this goal for income equality to increase instead of just to eliminate poverty?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

any man, woman, or child with a lick of sense will tell you that inequality is not a fucking "good" thing and should be negated as realistically as possible.

your statement uses "everyone knows" logical fallacy, but has no argument for why inequality is not good

most arguments against inequality here are confused about what is inequality and what is poverty.

you can have equality and poverty, like in african jungle tribe
you can have inequailty and poverty, like in india now
you can have some inequality and no poverty, like in sweden
you can have lots of inequality and no poverty, like in america

everyone agrees that it is better for there to be no poverty, because it is inhuman, it causes crime and revolution, and it hurts human capital growth. however poverty no longer exists meaningfully in developed world. everyone has food, access to education and emergency healthcare, even the people who think they are poor have roads, electricity, water and telecommunications

what is the goal of society? why is it necessary for this goal for income equality to increase instead of just to eliminate poverty?

Holy shit dude, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

First off, as a poor American I can tell you right now that America has a fuckton of poor people so I'm not sure what drug you're on.

Secondly, I specifically said I was a Capitalist; ergo, I am not in favor of income equality or the complete eradication of poverty because those are pipe dreams.

Third, please do not act like poverty is unrelated to inequality because it very much is. The more extreme the inequality; the more people end up impoverished.

And last but certainly not least: there is not a single settlement in Africa - be it a bustling port city to a small fishing village - where one can find true "equality". This goes for literally every continent, every country on it, and every settlement in them as a matter of fact.

Oh, and please don't pretend like because people live in the developed world they don't experience poverty because holy shit is that some serious revisionist crap right there.

[The Liberated Territories]

I was right on this thread. Just loads of people saying "herr trinkle down wrong" without refuting the OP's point. The fact is, inequality is necessary for any civilized society to progress pass the Stone Age.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The fact is, inequality is necessary for any civilized society to progress pass the Stone Age.

I agree, but we shouldn't subsidize the rich, nor do we need to to keep the markets working effectively. I also don't think anybody would comply if the state attempted to enforce such redistribution; I certainly wouldn't.

[Philjia]

I was right on this thread. Just loads of people saying "herr trinkle down wrong" without refuting the OP's point. The fact is, inequality is necessary for any civilized society to progress pass the Stone Age.

Nobody is denying specialisation is a necessity in a complex economy and disparities the the skill level and necessity of tasks will inherently generate some wealth inequality, and all market systems, by nature of being competitive, will generate winners and losers. This is very different to the premise of the OP's argument (I use the term very loosely) that the economy will grow more if wealth inequality is increased, or that if it did the majority of people would see the benefits, which is clearly nonsense.

[Conserative Morality]

"New" concept? """""""""""New""""""""""" concept?

What's with all these wide-eyed, self-congratulatory, young right-wingers trying to pretend that ideas like "the rich are just better than the poor," or "women are most equal when they stay in the kitchen," or "human races are just different," are all new, revolutionary breakthroughs? They're not, they've just never read a history book, and that's why they buy into it.

I'm sorry, I don't care how many times you lazily paint over the expatriation date on that can, the food inside is still rotten and shit.

It's funny. Or it would be if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Conserative Morality]

And I've made my argument clear that the bullshit you're peddling is nothing more than NeoFeudalist trash. Funny how you haven't once tried to defend against that accusation, huh?

Woke: maybe neofeudalism is Actually Good

Yeah, and then the guillotine can make a comeback. Everyone loves a good jacquerie.

[Great Minarchistan]

I'd like to hop on the bandwagon and reiterate that "trickle down" economics has been a theory for, like, 130 years at this point. This idea is nowhere near "new".

Trickle-down focuses on net tax cutting though. The proposal's to transfer income directly from the poor to the rich.

[Valrifell]

I'd like to hop on the bandwagon and reiterate that "trickle down" economics has been a theory for, like, 130 years at this point. This idea is nowhere near "new".

Trickle-down focuses on net tax cutting though. The proposal's to transfer income directly from the poor to the rich.

The core idea is essentially the same, "if we enable or help the rich do whatever the fuck they want, eventually they'll help the poor. Right? Right?"