[groby_b]

Imbalance is not a zero-sum issue.

"Imagine four people got all the food, and the rest got another 20%" is still imbalanced, even with 120% of the food. And there still would be violence. The problem is that the benefits of anything not zero-sum disproportionately accrue to the people who already have more than enough. And that simultaneously zero-sum resources also disproportionately accrue to the ones who already have so much.

It's not "playing a zero sum game" when you question why e.g. Bezos should accrue another $40 billion in net value, while hospitals struggle to provide PPE to their health care workers.

It's not "a zero sum game" if you ask why we have a world where somebody can hoard $150 billion while 800 million people need to go hungry every day.

Hugely disproportional resource allocation will break civilizations, zero-sum or not. (I'm fairly convinced that some inequality might contribute to a better society, but we've exceeded reasonable limits long ago)

[TeMPOraL]

Your mention about hospitals makes me wonder whether we should call the problem "resource allocation". Maybe it's an issue of resource leaks? For example, hospitals get a lot of money, objectively, but there are also whole industries that parasite on that money, by overcharging, vendor-locking, encouraging waste, and doing all the kinds of shady things competitive companies tend to do.

[groby_b]

Yes, absolutely. Any economy is ultimately about efficient resource allocation.

The question is then, how do you measure efficiency. Proponents of a more equal world argue that the current extreme imbalance is only "efficient" for a very small subset of the population, and likely inefficient both for the vast majority, and for long-term success of societies.

The long-term question is basically a result of economies being feedback loops - if benefits accrue inequally, and capital results in opportunities, any system that doesn't have some negative feedback loops ultimately will amplify the inequality more and more.

In extremis, that means one person with all the resources. I'd argue that this is an outcome that probably nobody wants.

And in the context of OP: unless the total cake grows faster than the inequality, this holds true for non-zero-sum games, too.

The world has experienced tremendous growth in the past. It doesn't right now (and it can't sustainably continue growth in many areas), so the question is, what feedback loops do we want in place.

[clairity]

yes, that's a principle line of criticism of (crony) capitalism, that the efficient allocation condition no longer holds. greater wealth concentration enables greater distortions, and ultimately to the destruction, of free and fair markets that are the crux of capitalism.

[wizzwizz4]

When people defend capitalism online, they're usually defending crony capitalism – mostly because they're trying to defend capitalism against people criticising it, but don't know what capitalism is (other than that it's good).

[star-trek-fleet]

> Imbalance is not a zero-sum issue.

Yes, totally support this argument.

Most people advocating for rich people's existence is that they can more effectively utilize the resources and power. But they never tough upon the imbalance itself.

The imbalance has 2 aspects to it: * Utility: Does imbalance proclaims efficiency. * Morality: Is it moral to have imbalance.

Of ucz, both aspects need themselves to be balanced. I.e., we do encourage people with the obvious talent to enjoy imbalanced power and fortune. Like the young Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and now Elon Musk. It is more utilitarian, and more moral to have these people enjoying more imbalanced power and fortune, then the older Steve, Bill, and Elon; in the sense, that when they are less talent, they should be pushed to be less entitled, and prefer a more moral position in the imbalance.

I mean, what Bill Gates does is not particularly more brilliant than a government directed research organization. Then why do we allow such a large fortune sit there without being spent for the people, after all, the fortunate was not earned by Bill the individual, it's a symbol of attribution through the capitalism system.