[TheAdamAndChe]

The issue with this is that it's going to create massive political instability if there are a few megacities with massive poverty in every other state. There are already signs that our political system is already destabilizing. What makes you think this wouldn't amplify that?

[jimmywanger]

The alternative is government mandated poverty. The government hardly ever creates wealth. They can create the conditions for wealth creation by getting the heck out of the way.

To be a bit dramatic, Venezuela, PRK, Sudan, and Cuba all have incredibly low wealth inequality. Except for the rich and corrupt, everybody else has just about the same as everybody else, which is nothing, based on government policies. Hong Kong is cutthroat with high levels of inequality, but it's also an engine of economic growth. Would you really rather like in Sub Saharan Africa than Hong Kong?

EDIT: And massive wealth and capital concentration brought us Amazon and Google. In exchange for newly minted millionaires being "equal" to us, would you rather live in a world without those technologies - next day shipping and Google Maps and Search?

[caseydurfee]

"The government hardly ever creates wealth. They can create the conditions for wealth creation by getting the heck out of the way."

Yes, we're aware that's how it works in shitty novels about trains from the 1950's.

Here in the real world, every single technological innovation in the iPhone was created by the US Government, or with the assistance of US government-funded basic research. This book breaks the whole thing down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State

Google Maps is a particularly terrible example. It wouldn't exist without GPS, a technology invented by the US government.

Hong Kong's government puts billions of dollars a year into technology research. That's not a good example, either. Furthermore, HK has lower income inequality than Nigeria, Rwanda, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Burundi, The Gambia, Swaziland, Botswana, CAR, Sierra Leone and Namibia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq... . So your statement "everybody else has just about the same as everybody else" in sub-Saharan Africa is total bullshit.

Japan and Scandinavia have relatively low rates of income inequality (especially compared to sub-Saharan Africa). Are you saying those countries are less innovative than Namibia (highest income inequality in the world)?

Finally, the idea that the sole difference between "Sub Saharan Africa" (a region that encapsulates over a billion people and over 40 countries which you regard as a monolith) and Hong Kong is due to "government policies" is childishly ignorant. Africa is not a country.

[jimmywanger]

I don't understnad your trains comment.

As for the government never creating wealth, most innovations that came out of government basic research came out of the DoD/partially NASA. Although mostly the DoD. Are you advocating for more defense funding, and then I'd be all behind you.

As for your income inequality chart, it shows exactly what I'm talking about. One of the highest "equality" ratings of the Gini coefficient is the Netherlands, where the Jante law holds sway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

As I said, those are countries who seem like they're stagnating. Do you really want countries with low outcome equality vs. equality of opportunitity vs countries who actually let you excel and keep the fruits of your labour and skill? Outcome inequality is not a bad thing.

Also note that in your gini chart, most of the countries which are awful have no statistics. Are they equal or just a blank slate that you can project your own feelings on?

[distances]

> Do you really want countries with low outcome equality vs. equality of opportunitity

This is a commonly given argument, but does not apply to the US -- it's nowhere near a country of equal opportunity. I'd be more open to the argument if you'd include items like no inheritance and no private schooling, to really give a more equal footing -- but I'm guessing these are not up for discussion. Thus, a certain amount of outcome equalizing is absolutely necessary.

[jimmywanger]

Incorrect. One of the highest drives of most human peopls is to make sure that their efforts will benefit their offspring.

Once you take that away, whether through inheritance tax or forbidding of public schooling or even presence of more books in the household, what incentive are you giving them to produce? Do not equalize outcome.

[distances]

I think we agree then that equal opportunity isn't realistic, and perhaps even shouldn't be attempted. Thus, please avoid making this kind of simple argument of opportunity vs. outcome, as that's not at all what is being suggested.