[majewsky]

> Isn’t the problem with inequality that it makes the society less stable?

Yes. However, too much equality also makes society too static, because no one is incentivized to innovate anymore. The problem, as always, is maintaining the right balance.

[yesenadam]

>However, too much equality also makes society too static, because no one is incentivized to innovate anymore.

Sorry if this is a naive question, but is that really true? What's the evidence for believing that, much less treating it as fact?

[tatersolid]

> Sorry if this is a naive question, but is that really true? What's the evidence for believing that, much less treating it as fact?

The economic collapse of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact counties, Venezuela, North Korea.

By allowing a free market invasion in their Communist utopia, the Chinese Communist Party long ago abandoned their core ideology in favor of “pragmatic authoritarianism.” They get to stay in power, while reaping economic benefits impossible in a truly communist economy.

[yesenadam]

So you see all those places as having "too much equality"? And that, particularly, caused lack of innovation which made them too static?

[tatersolid]

Yes. There was essentially zero upward economic mobility in those societies, except for the party elite. When only 0.001% of your society has any possibility of bettering their circumstances, innovation stagnates.

It is still true that most anybody can get rich in a capitalist economy if they’re some combination of smart, hard-working, or lucky. This causes lots of people to try.