The Mathematics of Inequality

Post by slamdance » Fri, Oct 20, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

mping wrote: post #6

slamdance wrote: post #3

Earlier 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…

The Bezos example is interesting, he did built something, and part of it was on low wage workers on Amazon fulfilment warehouses alright.

people that willingly choose those positions. I didn't go to college. I go a job out of high school. I did what I had to do, to be able to do what I want to do. People today think a degree entitles them to $100k/yr and a new Porsche. That's not this works. That's not how any of this works...

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

slamdance wrote: post #3

Klockan wrote: post #2

The 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…

A republican governmental structure has exactly zero to do with economic distribution. Also, people who say 'Life isn't FAIR' are choosing to make it that way. Other people think it should be fair and want to organize so as to maximize fairness. The fact that you know whether something is unfair or not (regardless of whether you approve of it) suggest that it is objectively measurable in some way.

Also, LOL at the irony of someone proclaiming that life isn't fair while simultaneously denouncing redistribution of resources as 'wanton theft'. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Re: The Mathematics of Inequality

Re: The Mathematics of Inequality