[michaelmrose]

You are being deliberately obtuse and confusing the map for the territory.

Can you really not conceive of anything that could be done to decrease inequality less than literally swapping houses?

Money is an abstract store of value so that we don't have to trade goats and houses.

I suggest we tax the rich to fund a better social safety net, education, and free medical care for all Americans.

[roenxi]

> Can you really not conceive of anything that could be done to decrease inequality less than literally swapping houses?

I can think of lots of ways to decrease inequality.

> Money is an abstract store of value so that we don't have to trade goats and houses.

Yes.

> I suggest we tax the rich to fund a better social safety net, education, and free medical care for all Americans.

That is cool and all, but talking hypothetically what if we doubled everyone's real wealth & income? That'd more than double the tax take and the poor would have more to start with to boot.

So that would be a big improvement for everyone even though inequality would have risen some ungodly amount.

Why would the rise in inequality in such a scenario be bad? The list of things you have here is of phenomenon of absolute amounts of resources. Inequality is a phenomenon of relative amounts.

[michaelmrose]

We can tax the rich more next year I don't believe you can credibly claim we can double real wealth by next year.

[roenxi]

:P That does seem unlikely. It is a thought experiment to illustrate that whatever the problem is it is not the inequality per se. Which is why I'm asking questions along the lines of "What is the problem here, and why do people think it is wealth inequality?". I think the problem is a lack of resource provision for the poor.