Fundamentally, wealth can only be created against the backdrop of social order. If you gave Zuck $10 million, far more capital then he started Facebook with, and sent him to Somalia, he would not be a billionaire today. He would've been killed and his money taken. Any business he built would've been taken from him. Because he's not skilled in war, and without social order that's the only skill that matters.
Each person equally contributes to the social order, and therefore each person has equal say in the structure of that society. That's the basis for liberal democracy. If people feel that inequality undermines the social order, they are entitled to do something about it.
Sure. But if they're proposing cures worse than the disease, we should try to talk them out of it, not just play on their feelings of "unfairness" to win political battles.
For tl;dr of that book, by the same author, is here: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-p...
- What other solutions to the problem of wealth being used for political influence have been proposed?
- Would lobbying/fundraising reform be a better focus, rather than attempting to make everyone, regardless of their contribution to the economy, have equal amounts of wealth?
- When was the last time nationwide wealth equality was proposed? What were the results? What about previously? What about before that?
We are all drastically more wealthy than our parents and grandparents. We have it far better. But for socialists, this is not enough. They despise "inequality" and wealth.
Only if by 'we' to mean the top 20% of American society.
The median worker's wages have been essentially stagnant since 1970: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/01/13/opinion/13green...
Moreover, inflation has been uneven: food (including in restaurants) and electronics have plummeted, but the costs of education and healthcare have skyrocketed, and housing has skyrocketed in areas with good job opportunities. It's easy to cut back on new electronics and restaurants, but a lot harder to cut back on housing and healthcare. Cutting back in education gets your stuck in a poverty trap.
So things don't necessarily look so bright for the median worker, especially after 6 years of persistently high unemployment.
I can't dig up a source for that part right now, but it's out there in the CPI statistics.
This kind of language is exactly why you think only 20% of Americans are wealthier than our parents and grandparents. Money ≠ wealth. Compare the number of people today who have access to washers, dryers, irons, microwaves, a kitchen, cars, cell phones, and so on to previous generations. Even if wages have remained stagnant the average standard of living is almost always increasing. You can even live in an apartment, own many or all of those items I listed, and still be classified as living in conditions of poverty.
I'm not saying poverty doesn't exist. But I am saying the definition of poverty is constantly being adjusted because humans are so great at creating more wealth. Instead of an absolute metric for poverty or a standard of living, we use a subjective one that changes as humans acquire more wealth.
If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend Paul Graham's essay "How to Make Wealth"[1]. He covers this subject very well.
But on inflation adjusted income, job opportunities, and retirement age and social security benefits the baby boomer generation was likely the peak. Trust me, the likelihood that we are just going downhill from now is quite high.
>They despise "inequality" and wealth. Maybe. I despise Kim Il Song. He is wealthy and his country has inequality.
people pretend that wealth does not increase the cost of living for the poor, but it does. And the poor should not be penalized for this.
Even the village idiot should have a place to sleep, though the very valuable Einstein bought all the houses.
Some people want to think that a village idiot doesn't deserve to live a miserable life because he is a village idiot.
You're certainly pulling a lot of strawmen here. Come to think of it, almost reminds me of Fox News. They have a habit of demonizing the other group, just to make themselves feel better.
Thank you for being the better person and not joining in.
The idea that he would think that a village idiot deserves to live a miserable life is entirely in your head, and quite at odds with the second paragraph of his comment.
I was trying to say that the inequality and "hatred" towards inequality and wealth(both claims unsubstantiated, with emotionally charged language)he is attributing to "socialists"(used as almost a slur in his text, also, wrong, social democracies are the wealthiest systems around) is in his head. You are the one misrepresenting my argument.
And just because we have it "better", doesn't mean everyone has at least a reasonable standard of living. Einstein should be earning a lot more, but a village idiot also deserves to not live in dire poverty.