Cultural advantages not only exist, but they clearly have tremendous effects. Not only are the effects large, but they also tend to be very efficient with respect to cost. If people are really serious about addressing poverty, then this should be one of the first places they look.
However, when I look at the policy positions of my chosen tribe (the Left) I see it favoring policies which erode the transmission of wealth-generating cultural knowledge. I see policies which encourage isolation communities. I see policies which have resulted in the dissolution of families. I see the glorification of subcultures which are anti-education.
I am talking about capping wealth or income and redistributing it.
I think some American billionaires would do well to be more like wealthy elites in Japan and Sweden. I think it would be very good to see some of that wealth go towards the building up of the physical and cultural commons. I suspect it would be far better if that were voluntary, than if we set a precedent by making it forced.
Yes. Cultural advantages exist. It's a part of the issue of income inequality.
>That is how Pareto distributions work.
I know. That's my point. Redistributing excessive wealth would counter this.
>Then again, the historical record shows that trying to scale egalitarian/communal societies past a relatively small size tends to result in decaying and destroyed social fabrics as well.
I am not talking about everyone being a hippy and living together in harmony. I am talking about capping wealth or income and redistributing it.