[vladd]

> The current economic system funnels economic value from the poor to the ultra rich.

The economic system creates values (and you can compare it with alternatives such as Soviet Union to realize just by how much). It does this in an unequal way, by chance, historical context and self-selection preferences. But the creation of value still trumps any inequality it might have. With TV, air conditioning and phones, an entry mid-class person in US is having it ten times better than the kings of middle ages.

[harimau777]

This is precisely what Rawls is trying to get at with his "original position". Our system certainly creates value and that value is certainly unequally distributed. Would someone support that situation if they did not know what part of the value distribution they would receive?

I think it's likely that a lower class person might prefer an alternative system that produced somewhat less value but distributed it more equally.

[dalmo3]

> I think it's likely that a lower class person might prefer an alternative system that produced somewhat less value but distributed it more equally.

As evidenced by the vast amount of poor Americans emigrating to Cuba, or poor Brazilians crossing the border to Venezuela. They really desire all that sweet equality.

[harimau777]

You are presenting a false dilemma. The only options are not American corporate capitalism or authoritarian communism. We could instead have varying degrees of welfare capitalism or one of the numerous other systems that have been suggested such as anarcho-syndicalism.

[matrix87]

> you can compare it with alternatives such as Soviet Union

Not really because there are too many other variables

> But the creation of value still trumps any inequality it might have.

Why is inequality even necessary here in the first place? How do you know that creation of value can't exist in the presence of equality? The Nordics do a better job at it

> With TV, air conditioning and phones,

This is the mysticism I was referring to. Look at all of this cool stuff, no don't look at the rich people poisoning the water supply

> is having it ten times better than the kings of middle ages.

yeah and it's 1000x better than cavemen banging on rocks in the stone age, so the peasantry should be 1000x as grateful

[vladd]

> Not really because there are too many other variables

You can average out countries that equalize property rights to the state vs. average of countries where property variance is respected, and check which ones are doing better vs worse.

> How do you know that creation of value can't exist in the presence of equality?

Equality of output would imply equality of inputs? People will no longer have the right to decide for themselves if they want to be busy creating wealth or busy doing more social/pleasurable things?

> yeah and it's 1000x better than cavemen banging on rocks in the stone age

Why do you take that improvement for granted? (in the context of today's nuclear treats, it's not a given that we'll able to propel this rate moving forward in the next 100 years, there's a non-zero probability that we wipe ourselves back to the stone age).

Or more generically, if you had to chose between two economic policies, one with 1'000x improvement where people can take risks and see variation in rewards according to their choices (and an element of luck/historical background), and another one where everyone is forced to the same output, irrespective of their actions, which leads some to pursue more pleasure activities to a larger fraction of their existence and the improvement is just 50x, which one would you choose for the society?

Is equality worthy as a goal in itself? And if so, enough in order to stop people in self-selecting doing what they want and letting them keep some percentage as a reward for assuming the risk? Even if it leads us as a society to slower growth?