How do we solve it?

Can you actually solve something that is inherent to nature?

thoughts

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2017 2:43:54 PM

Explain "inherent to nature."

8/17/2017 2:55:24 PM

it's about to get real dark real quick

8/17/2017 2:57:12 PM

here is some more rope - please explain inherent to nature

8/17/2017 3:00:03 PM

And. Away. We. Go.

8/17/2017 3:03:38 PM

Inherent to nature means that there is no such thing as equality, except in perhaps a mathematical sense

8/17/2017 3:10:12 PM

I'm sure you were able to grab what it is you needed because that was quite a reach.

8/17/2017 3:19:36 PM

Thank you

8/17/2017 3:42:18 PM

Example: x + 2 > 12

Subtract 2 from both sides:

x + 2 - 2 > 12 - 2

Simplify:

x > 10

Solved!

https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/inequality-solving.html

8/17/2017 5:19:12 PM

If it's "inherent in nature" why does it seem to have changed so drastically in response to political policy?

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 10:53 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2017 10:50:44 PM

The problem is that our political and economic system is not equipped to handle low growth.

It's not crazy difficult to understand how inequality could be stabilized. Simply different policies (all that moderate "regulated capitalism" stuff) could shift who holds economic power and economic leverage. Wealth redistribution could also obviously suffice, although not without the political institutions to durably support it (which I doubt).

Quote :

"How do we solve it? "

The hand of God could solve it by increasing the rate of productivity growth. Then it just simply goes away.

Inequality growth is a matter of multiple mutually-supporting factors. Importance of capital grows as a fraction of overall GDP, meaning that the rich earn more disproportionality, meaning that wealth inequality begets income inequality. Low growth exasperates the cycle altogether because the spread between return-on-capital and total economic growth increases, making it harder for the rich to spend enough money to keep their share of wealth stable.

Increasing total birth rates could solve it, because this also increases economic product in total, and decreases the relative importance of capital.

Changing the distribution of birth rates through the economy could solve it by making inheritance progressive generation-to-generation, but it has the opposite effect with no sign of ever reversing.

Quote :

"Can you actually solve something that is inherent to nature?"

Inequality isn't sustainable. So the natural event that you are observing has nothing to do with society as-you-know-it. Much like global warming, inequality is only a problem because of the future that our equations predict. Inequality increases until a tipping point, a transition point is reached.

Yes, tipping-points are inherent to nature. Civilization goes through stages. The Bronze Age collapse was more nature than it was man. You life, our skyscrapers, all of the democratic ideals you value are leaves blowing through the winds of a hurricane that drive the course of history.

I'm not really looking forward to the next stage, because I really kind of liked the post-WWII and enlightenment ideas of keeping power in the hands of the people. In this next stage, whatever it be, power will be dramatically more concentrated as a matter of reversion-to-mean (yes, also very natural). I agree It's not something to get upset about, because even though I want to change it, I can't.

about thoughts... how do you feel about the next generation collectively losing control in their world? The control that we used to have. Economic power is a matter of say-so in the world, and things like media and the vote follow in tight formation.

Eventually, at least I have hope that in the end-game of uber-concentration to 1 single entity, a benevolent AI with a better ethical compass than us takes the reigns. At least I hope that future human generations will have a place in this world... at the table, not just at the command of the powerful. Although, I know just how unrealistic that hope is.

8/17/2017 11:17:35 PM

Quote :

"If it's "inherent in nature" why does it seem to have changed so drastically in response to political policy?"

because that was a total BS claim that has zero evidence to support it

also, people need to learn the difference between equity and equality ITT

8/17/2017 11:48:04 PM

Quote :

" The problem is that our political and economic system is not equipped to handle low growth."

you mean its a ponzi scheme

Quote :

"Then it just simply goes away"

you mean it becomes externalized

8/18/2017 4:09:24 AM

I don't see anything inherently wrong with inequality, but it can cause problems at extremes.

People are social animals that don't actually care about their absolute wealth but rather their place in the hierarchy. If I could give you 1000x the material wealth and comfort you have today, but you're now the poorest person in the world, you would feel worse.

It's a question of hierarchy management - how do you keep this thing from getting so lopsided that the people at the bottom of the hierarchy just say fuck it, let's kill the guy on top.

However, I strongly disagree with some arguments that hierarchies are inherently bad. Hierarchy is actually a good and necessary thing. Everyone wants hierarchies in place when they go in for heart surgery; you *want* that person working on your heart to be there because they worked through a hierarchical, meritocratic system. I don't know any socialists that disagree with this point.

All that said, I don't think it should be surprising that there is more and more extreme wealth inequality. Even if all governments were good at what they're supposed to do, you'd still have insane disparities due to economies of scale. And resources are power, so the people that get on top are not going to give up their wealth due to some silly democratic election.

[Edited on August 18, 2017 at 10:54 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2017 10:52:43 AM

Inequality is not a problem with me as long as the process was just. Regretfully, much of society's inequality is a product of an unjust process. The unjust process can surely be made better. Problem is, it can also be made much worse, and it unclear to me how to get society to change its mind in the better way.

8/18/2017 1:18:42 PM

^ Individual wealth is not a construct rooted in ethics.

Patents are a form of ownership, and they expire at an arbitrary time, which was historically 14 years. Now, corporations (like big Pharma) lobby for special rules that extend the length of patent protection for their product category.

If the length of patent protection starts to harm consumers, then we have an ethical obligation to shorten it because the utilitarian goal of patents was always to improve the welfare of us collectively.

How can you even defend wealth as rooted in ethics when people have died for the purpose of defending our system of government? They don't get to own anything. Surely there must be a limit to rights of ownership if excess wealth constrains the freedom of other people.

Inequality should be utilitarian as well. Some amount of economic inequality probably makes us better off - that's something that distinguished us from communists.

Quote :

"Inequality is not a problem with me as long as the process was just."

I get the feeling that you would defend inequality up to the complete collapse of our society. With our digital society, it's not inconceivable that the rules of the market could lead to a small group of individuals gaining a tremendously large fraction of the value out there in our economy (border-lining on all). This can happen if they play by the rules as-they-exist. Plus, the rules contain provisions for changing the rules, which can go in the favor of the rich, enabled by their wealth. Nothing is unfair if it's by the rules.

Pragmatism is the only thing that should matter. Capitalism is a tool for the betterment of our welfare, but if can fly out of control. There's no ethical problem with reigning in its excesses, just as there was no truly ethical reason for its implementation in the first place, just a pragmatic reason.

8/19/2017 2:20:20 PM

8/19/2017 9:06:14 PM

Quote :

"I get the feeling that you would defend inequality up to the complete collapse of our society. With our digital society, it's not inconceivable that the rules of the market could lead to a small group of individuals gaining a tremendously large fraction of the value out there in our economy (border-lining on all). This can happen if they play by the rules as-they-exist. Plus, the rules contain provisions for changing the rules, which can go in the favor of the rich, enabled by their wealth. Nothing is unfair if it's by the rules. Pragmatism is the only thing that should matter. Capitalism is a tool for the betterment of our welfare, but if can fly out of control. There's no ethical problem with reigning in its excesses, just as there was no truly ethical reason for its implementation in the first place, just a pragmatic reason."

And I disagree. The moral thing to do is liberty and self determination. We violate those only when we must. It needs saying that we must violate them often, but it is because not doing so involves such dramatic and provable costs. We should not violate human rights just because we as government planners feel society would be slightly better off. No, it must be dramatically better off and with a steep evidenciary requirement.

Now, if there was a fad and everyone was building nuclear bombs in their basements, then of course government must act to suppress that human liberty and self determination. The evidence that nuclear bombs are too dangerous is very persuasive. However, the evidence that inequality by itself is somehow a threat to society is weak and any attempt to correct it involves basically doing away with liberty and self determination on a wide scale. Even then, the attempt would most certainly not be successful, as it would dramatically increase governmental influence inequality as those connected to government were no longer just rich, but had a monopoly on self determination itself.

[Edited on August 26, 2017 at 5:35 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/26/2017 5:33:07 PM

Perhaps one way to go about things is to increase the taxes on estates upon death or something so people wont be as inclined to just hoard money. This would reward people who work hard or come up with something innovative still so as not to stifle the economy while making sure all the wealth didnt pile up into specific families constantly? Maybe have some very specific things that those taxes go to fund that specifically helps out lower income people have a chance to make their way up like funding small business startups or something. Some department can determine what a reasonable sum of money is to leave your next generation and the rest goes back into the system.

Now maybe that would just turn into old people blowing all their money on crazy stuff instead I suppose.

8/28/2017 10:27:51 AM

what do you think happens to money that sits in the bank? or are you concerned about folks hoarding cash in their mattress or something?

8/28/2017 8:40:03 PM

There is nothing wrong with inequality. The problem is when people don't have the bare necessities required tp succeed.

8/29/2017 11:51:53 AM