I intentionally chose a provocative title (knowing the left-leanings of AF membership) to draw attention so please do not take offence based on the title alone. However, I think the issue raised by the following quote speaks to a very real inconsistency in the way the issue is discussed. If income inequality is a problem (I'm not sure as noted below) then the remedy proposed by left-wing commentators is not only itself problematic but potentially worse. Here is the money quote:

Quote:"Since men value power and prestige as much as the possession of wealth---indeed, these three `goods' cannot be completely separated---it is foolish to seek to establish an equality of wealth on egalitarian grounds. It is foolish first because it will not result in what egalitarians really want. It is foolish also because if we do not let men compete for money, they will compete all the more for power; and whereas the possession of wealth by another man does not hurt me, unless I am made vulnerable by envy, the possession of power by another is Inherently dangerous; and furthermore if we are to maintain a strict equality of wealth we need a much greater apparatus of state to secure it and therefore a much greater inequality of power. Better have bloated plutocrats than omnipotent bureaucrats."

You can read the full article here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/libeqsor/equality.html

For a while I have been vacillating on the current issue of income inequality. The fact that overwhelming wealth has been concentrated into an extremely small group of individuals is something I find disturbing. At the same time, I'm not sure how my life would be different were that not the case. I certainly believe that average citizens have unprecedented access markets and audiences - more than any other time in human history. By culture and temperament I value liberty more highly than material equality - at least once a people have achieved a basic level of sustenance and security. The author also did not treat much of longevity and how advances in technology would produce what I believe would be an even more odious kind of inequality. Despite difference of wealth and power, those of more common stock could at least take some consolation that death comes to all - from kings to peasants. I'm curious about how others feel.

(hat tip: maverick philosopher)

So you started this out by trying to provoke people, but you seem to want a real response instead of a provocative response. That's a great way to start a conversation, Chad. Shall I direct you to the "Libtards" and "Republicunts" threads? They work about as well.

I have an issue with the part of the quote that states the possession of wealth by another man doesn't hurt me. Given that there is supposed to be a limited quantity of money in the world, which is what gives it value, I'd say allowing a hundred people to hold more wealth than half the planet, or 1% of America holding more wealth than the other 99% combined, is harmful. People in modern society need a certain threshold of wealth to survive properly. We don't all need to be millionaires, or billionaires, but poverty does cause a lot of problems. It's not a coincidence that higher crime rates tend to happen in poor communities.

The golden age of prosperity happened when there were higher taxes on the rich, and a strong middle class. You'd think we'd all be well aware of this sort of thing given the past century, yet there are still people endorsing trickle down economics.

Well, what your quote fails to realize is that money equals power. I've always found it odd that people will fight against the consolidation of power by the government while simultaneously having no problem handing it over to the business elite. Furthermore, saying the worst a plutocracy could get is bloated while a government will be omnipotent is disingenuous. Controlling the markets and the banks wields as much power as any government could hope for, and if you think the worst that can happen is a bloated plutocracy, I'll point you to the Great Recession and the deceptive practices that nearly brought down the world economy.

Another scary fact is that these investment bankers and elitists actually make money off of our boom and bust economy. So, while the average Joe suffers the consequences, they're actually incentivized to cause the market to have extreme ups and downs.

So, what's the answer? I think thee best we can hope for is checks and balances that keep government and the 1% in check, but I'm not really certain how to go about that precisely. The thing I do know is that we should not stick our heads in the sand and say, "OMG, government is bad, but what's the worst that could happen in a plutocracy."

(September 22, 2016 at 11:09 am)Chad32 Wrote: I have an issue with the part of the quote that states the possession of wealth by another man doesn't hurt me. Given that there is supposed to be a limited quantity of money in the world, which is what gives it value,...

Wealth is not limited to fiat currency. Wealth includes the sum total of tangible and intangible assets, from gold and cattle to various kinds of intellectual property. Wealth increases depending on the the production of new assets and the lasting value (or loss) of exist assets. Productive people create wealth. I believe that needs to be part of any calculus.

The larger point, however, is that one person' increase does not diminish how much another person owns. If Pete owns 5 books and Jim owns 2, then Pete adding one more to his collection doesn't hurt Jim. What you are saying is that Pete's purchase diminishes the number of books available. That does not take into account the fact that new books are written all the time. If enough books are written then the price of books will go down to the benefit of both Pete and Jim (unless of course their collections lose value because of an increase in the supply of books)

I'm far less troubled by income inequality than I am by the inequality of political access that results. Now that money=speech for 1st Amendment purposes, Orwell's 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others' sentiment seems to have been enshrined in our political system. Yes, it has always been thus, but now the SC has put the stamp of approval on it. If a relative handful of people can possibly queer an election result by dumping tons of money into a Super Pac and spreading misinformation about a candidate they don't like (and, yes, it cuts both ways among conservatives and liberals), then our entire political system is largely a joke and up for grabs to those interests with the most disposable wealth.

I favor sensible tax policies that are not regressive but also don't unduly stifle investment and capital creation. There's a sensible medium somewhere that we, as a country, seem to have a hard time wrapping our arms around. The real culprit I think we should focus on is the out-of-control money that gets dumped into every election.

(September 22, 2016 at 11:16 am)Faith No More Wrote: Well, what your quote fails to realize is that money equals power.  I've always found it odd that people will fight against the consolidation of power by the government while simultaneously having no problem handing it over to the business elite....I think thee best we can hope for is checks and balances that keep government and the 1% in check, but I'm not really certain how to go about that precisely.  The thing I do know is that we should not stick our heads in the sand and say, "OMG, government is bad, but what's the worst that could happen in a plutocracy."

Your reply has a great deal of merit. Both wealth and political power wield influence. (The essay also includes prestige) I am not sure those are directly convertible. The ideal, it would seem is to minimize the ability to translate one into the other. I see two ways for business and governments to interact. The first is with regulations that impartially promote (like public infrastructure) or restrict the scope and reach of businesses (like anti-trust regulations and general limits use of public goods like riverways). The second could also include regulations that target the practices and/or viability of specific industries (tariffs, tax breaks, barriers to entry, etc.). The second are ripe for corruption since the provide incentives to businesses to curry favor with politicians who will pass laws that financially benefit themselves and their cronies.

So I do not think there is an ideal size of government, in terms of public investment or protections, but rather limiting the types of regulation with which the state can engage. Likewise, I do not think businesses should have free reign to engage in zero-sum practices that unfairly tilt markets in their direction.

Quote:I have an issue with the part of the quote that states the possession of wealth by another man doesn't hurt me.

Yeah....rich fucks always say that.

BTW, Chad....

From your source:

Quote:from Philosophy, 40, 1965, pp.296-307;

reprinted in H.Bedau, ed., Justice and Equality, Prentice-Hall, 1971, pp.138-151.

1965?  WTH has that got to do with the rampant strangling of democracy by the super rich which began in 1980 when that senile old fuck, Reagan, was elected?

The very first line of this quote gets it wrong.

"Since men value power and prestige as much as the possession of wealth---indeed, these three `goods' cannot be completely separated---it is foolish to seek to establish an equality of wealth on egalitarian grounds."

Had the author said "some men" as opposed to simply the generalised "men", I could take the article seriously.