DGS49
Diamond Member
The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.
"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.
But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.
On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.
But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.
So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.
On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.
Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.
By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.
So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?
In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.
"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.
But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.
On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.
But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.
So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.
On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.
Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.
By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.
So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?
In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.