Wealth Inequality

[Chris]

Here's an interesting demo on how wealth tends to redistribute toward inequality.

This Interactive Demo Illustrates A Simple Truth That Influences Income Inequality

...there's a room of 50 people who each have $50. Every minute, each person will give a dollar to another random person in the room. Will the money be equally distributed amongst people or not?

That's a question posed by Uri Wilensky, a mathematician and professor at Northwestern University, and this interactive demo by Yaron Shemesh will help you arrive at the answer. (You can even adjust the number of people in the room, if you'd like).

To run the demo go to the prof's site: https://en.yaronshemesh.com/inequality/.

The answer is no. In time the money will be redistributed toward increasing ineaquality:



More interactively: https://lucasvw.github.io/assets/videos/money.mp4

The math is here: https://lucasvw.github.io/main/2017/06/22/money.html

This is what happens naturally. The government may interfere and redistribute toward equality but in the long run inequality returns.

Nozik, a political philosopher, explained this with the Wilt Chamberlain argument. Say you have a society and you distribute wealth however you like, let's way according Rawls's Difference Principle so at the start everyone has the same amount. But in this society live Wilt Chamberlain, an extraordinary basketball player that people want and choose to pay to see. In the long run, once again, you will end up with a distribution of wealth that tends more and more toward inequality.

And, as Nozik contends, since it is voluntary, it is not only natural but moral.

[Mark III]

Here's an interesting demo on how wealth tends to redistribute toward inequality.

This Interactive Demo Illustrates A Simple Truth That Influences Income Inequality



To run the demo go to the prof's site: https://en.yaronshemesh.com/inequality/.

The answer is no. In time the money will be redistributed toward increasing ineaquality:



More interactively: https://lucasvw.github.io/assets/videos/money.mp4

The math is here: https://lucasvw.github.io/main/2017/06/22/money.html

This is what happens naturally. The government may interfere and redistribute toward equality but in the long run inequality returns.

Nozik, a political philosopher, explained this with the Wilt Chamberlain argument. Say you have a society and you distribute wealth however you like, let's way according Rawls's Difference Principle so at the start everyone has the same amount. But in this society live Wilt Chamberlain, an extraordinary basketball player that people want and choose to pay to see. In the long run, once again, you will end up with a distribution of wealth that tends more and more toward inequality.

And, as Nozik contends, since it is voluntary, it is not only natural but moral.

And, if one of the unequals at the bottom puts a gun to the head of one of the "winners" and takes some of their money, it would be also voluntary and natural, so I guess therefore moral as well.

You can rationalize greed and indifference all you want and promote "intellectual" theories about why it is ok, we get that.

What you don't understand is that everything that happens is arbitrary. Someone else can conceive a theory where lessening inequality is a great good, and also inevitable.

Theories theories theories, when will you deal with what is before us?

[Kalkin]

Wealth inequality is a good thing. It's a reflection of intelligence inequality, talent inequality, luck inequality, skill inequality, and motivation inequality. Equality under law is the best a government can aspire to.

[Kalkin]

And, if one of the unequals at the bottom puts a gun to the head of one of the "winners" and takes some of their money, it would be also voluntary and natural, so I guess therefore moral as well.

How do you intellectually equate something that may be natural and voluntary to something that is moral? It fails the logic test.

[Mark III]

Wealth inequality is a good thing. It's a reflection of intelligence inequality, talent inequality, luck inequality, skill inequality, and motivation inequality. Equality under law is the best a government can aspire to.

People who object to "inequality" of wealth most always do not suggest that everyone should have the same amount of money. Some people do deserve more.

It is exploitation that is the problem. Human beings are fallen creatures and CANNOT be depended on to be fair without some "coercion" by a controlling authority.

[Kalkin]

People who object to "inequality" of wealth most always do not suggest that everyone should have the same amount of money. Some people do deserve more.
It is exploitation that is the problem. Human beings are fallen creatures and CANNOT be depended on to be fair without some "coercion" by a controlling authority.

Said "controlling authority" would be composed of "fallen creatures" that cannot be depended upon to be fair as well, yes?

[Newpublius]

Instantly back to Marxian exploitation theory. This oppressor/oppressed mentality is simply unwarranted.

They cannot be wealthy without serving the interests of many.

Does google make you poorer?

While there is certain intrinsic wealth in housing and cars, the true wealth lies in successful businesses.

GM has value because it makes cars and trucks and things people want. If Star Trek transporter technology existed tomorrow, the car plants would go idle and all the wealth of GM would evaporate except for some lingering salvage value.

[The Xl]

Wealth inequality is a good thing. It's a reflection of intelligence inequality, talent inequality, luck inequality, skill inequality, and motivation inequality. Equality under law is the best a government can aspire to.

That can be true, but isn't always. Plenty of replaceable cogs in the machine make good money without being particularly talented, and most big money occupations in the country are either directly or indirectly government subsidized.

[Newpublius]

Here's an interesting demo on how wealth tends to redistribute toward inequality.

This Interactive Demo Illustrates A Simple Truth That Influences Income Inequality



To run the demo go to the prof's site: https://en.yaronshemesh.com/inequality/.

The answer is no. In time the money will be redistributed toward increasing ineaquality:



More interactively: https://lucasvw.github.io/assets/videos/money.mp4

The math is here: https://lucasvw.github.io/main/2017/06/22/money.html

This is what happens naturally. The government may interfere and redistribute toward equality but in the long run inequality returns.

Nozik, a political philosopher, explained this with the Wilt Chamberlain argument. Say you have a society and you distribute wealth however you like, let's way according Rawls's Difference Principle so at the start everyone has the same amount. But in this society live Wilt Chamberlain, an extraordinary basketball player that people want and choose to pay to see. In the long run, once again, you will end up with a distribution of wealth that tends more and more toward inequality.

And, as Nozik contends, since it is voluntary, it is not only natural but moral.

Think its time for Johan Norberg:

[Kalkin]

That can be true, but isn't always. Plenty of replaceable cogs in the machine make good money without being particularly talented,

That would fall under luck inequality, imo.

and most big money occupations in the country are either directly or indirectly government subsidized.

We should end that. Tax breaks = good. Subsidies = bad.