The Mathematics of Inequality
now.tufts.edu
The Mathematics of Inequality
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: The Mathematics of Inequality
#2The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic actors.
A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality.
Similarly if poor people were rational they would organize against rich people, forcing them to share their wealth in one way or another. This could either be via violence or they could democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them or they could even unionize to gain power.
The question then isn't how we stop inequality when all actors are rational, but how we stop inequality when some people have irrational tendencies to hoard wealth while others irrationally prefers to vote for those who stands for some abstract ideals rather than those who would give them the most monetary rewards.
Re: The Mathematics of Inequality
#3The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic actors. A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality. Similarly if p…
>democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them...
good thing we live in a "republic". This line smacks of wanton theft. The poor should have a reason to be "given" money other than just being "poor" (as the standard reasoning with 'wealth distributors'), similarly, the rich should have a good reason to have their money stolen other than just being "rich".
Bezos BUILT something, Oprah BUILT something. Just because they're rich and you're not doesn't mean you deserve to be. This country (USA) - at least in theory - is about equal OPPORTUNITY - NOT "Equal Outcome".
Life Isn't FAIR. Stop trying to make everyone equal when they clearly aren't. Some people put in more work, have better ideas, better skills, attention to details, and follow through, while others do not.
You may never steal directly from your neighbor or friend, but voting for the government to do it is the same thing.
Re: The Mathematics of Inequality
#4The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic actors. A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality. Similarly if p…
> democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them... good thing we live in a "republic". This line smacks of wanton theft. The poor should have a reason to be "given" money other than just being "poor" (as the standard reasoning with 'wealth distributors'), similarly, the rich should have a good reason to have their money stolen other than just being "rich". Bezos BUILT something, Oprah BUILT som…
thus demonstrating the claim in the comment it answers
Re: The Mathematics of Inequality
#5The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic actors. A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality. Similarly if p…
If people were rational we wouldn't need money in the first place. Everybody would simply cooperate in order to maximize the benefit shared by all. We see this sort of behaviour in eusocial insects like bees and ants.
Re: The Mathematics of Inequality
#6The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic actors. A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality. Similarly if p…
> democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them... good thing we live in a "republic". This line smacks of wanton theft. The poor should have a reason to be "given" money other than just being "poor" (as the standard reasoning with 'wealth distributors'), similarly, the rich should have a good reason to have their money stolen other than just being "rich". Bezos BUILT something, Oprah BUILT som…
The Bezos example is interesting, he did built something, and part of it was on low wage workers on Amazon fulfilment warehouses alright.
Re: The Mathematics of Inequality
#7The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic actors. A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality. Similarly if p…
> democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them... good thing we live in a "republic". This line smacks of wanton theft. The poor should have a reason to be "given" money other than just being "poor" (as the standard reasoning with 'wealth distributors'), similarly, the rich should have a good reason to have their money stolen other than just being "rich". Bezos BUILT something, Oprah BUILT som…
When voters elect representatives to move money from the wealthy to themselves it is theft.
When wealthy donors, lobbyists, and corporations pour money into the political system to affect laws, distribution, incentives, outcomes it is "speech."
If life isn't fair, then why do you care about something you call theft? I'm not reading a self-consistent critique here.
Re: The Mathematics of Inequality
#8The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic actors. A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality. Similarly if p…
> democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them... good thing we live in a "republic". This line smacks of wanton theft. The poor should have a reason to be "given" money other than just being "poor" (as the standard reasoning with 'wealth distributors'), similarly, the rich should have a good reason to have their money stolen other than just being "rich". Bezos BUILT something, Oprah BUILT som…
An economic system is an agreement to forgo violence and theft as acceptable means to get what you want, in order to establish mutually beneficial conditions for the exchange of goods and services. As soon as the system stops being mutually beneficial and instead benefits the few at the expense of the many (regardless of skill, regardless of effort), the entire moral foundation on which the system was built crumbles and what you call wanton theft can sometimes be the rational response. Does this sound revolting to you? Well, too bad, life indeed isn't fair.
Re: The Mathematics of Inequality
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them... good thing we live in a "republic". This line smacks of wanton theft. The poor should have a reason to be "given" money other than just being "poor" (as the standard reasoning with 'wealth distributors'), similarly, the rich should have a good reason to have their money stolen other than just being "rich". Bezos BUILT something, Oprah BUILT som…
An economic system is an agreement to forgo violence and theft as acceptable means to get what you want, in order to establish mutually beneficial conditions for the exchange of goods and services. As soon as the system stops being mutually beneficial and instead benefits the few at the expense of the many (regardless of skill, regardless of effort), the entire moral foundation on which the system was built crumbles…
> An economic system is an agreement to forgo violence and theft as acceptable means to get what you want
No, its not.
I mean, sure, an economic system is always imposed by a political system, and some modern political systems have in their theoretical background an ideal of being established through free agreement, but that ideal is never actually fully realized in those systems, and plenty of political systems don't even have that in theory; in practice, participants in an economic system mostly do not get there as part of any agreement, and especially not a free and uncoerced agreement.
And economic systems often (in practice, always) involve violence and only avoid theft in that “theft” is defined as that which defies the rules of the state.
Re: The Mathematics of Inequality
#10The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic actors. A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality. Similarly if p…
There is what I believe to be a common misconception about the economic term "rationality" - it is actually devoid of morality. In economic theory, rationality is defined only as: when faced with a decision over many choices, the actor always chooses the choice they value most, according to their own "utility function". Self-interest is a misleading term for this because it could be selfish for a person to give away their all their wealth since altruism gives themselves the most internal "utility" /happiness. Regardless, if a billionaire maximizes their wealth, conditional on the billionaire getting more utility from more wealth than more of other things, then they are a rational economic actor.
What you are describing is a moral judgement about what people should "value", not how they make choices conditional on what they value. Rationality is not a technically correct term here.