[anon291]

That's because its post industrialized peers are failing states though. Assuming you are speaking of Europe, Japan and the anglosphere (Canada, Australia, and NZ), they are all having serious existential issues

The European countries cannot pay for their own defense and rely on America, thus their definition of even existing as nations is up for debate really. They're more like protectorates of the United States. If they actually had to pay for the defense resources they consume, they would quickly fail.

Canada is similar to a degree and while it is its own country, really depends on the US to protect its basic existence

Japan is dying as is Korea.

Australia and NZ maybe but they're having real economic trouble and are nothing to emulate.

Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.

Basically, if other countries had robust economies that were strong enough to provide for its own defense, they would be as unequal as the United States since inequality happens as economies grow and the benefits are not shared.

If you can show me a real country that provides for its own defense and does not depend on America that is more equal then please. Off the top of my head there are really only a few countries that even meet the criteria of being independent states. Of those, Russia, China, and India are the only important ones. Maybe Iran. Literally none of these are countries to emulate. America has higher social mobility than all of them, which is what really matters, not the difference between the richest and poorest

[vict7]

That’s a really interesting argument that I hadn’t considered. The US certainly has the unenviable position of being the world’s “policeman” for lack of a better term. Other countries wanting help from the US, yet also maligning it. Which… is probably more fair now than before to be sure.

> Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.

This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex though.

If you take the (naive) perspective that returning to a higher level of taxation on the most wealthy would increase government income, reducing inequality is just a beneficial side-effect there.

Edit: I apparently missed your point about inequality correlating to the size of an economy. Are you saying it’s not possible to have an economy as large as the US with less inequality than is currently present?

[anon291]

> This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex thoug

My claim is that America's technical dominance is due to its defense spending which leads to their being a larger economy and thus more inequality as some players win and some lose. Inequality means the rich get richer which is a thing that happens in a self propelling economy.

We see the same thing in other independent nations like China, India, and Russia who, unlike Europe and the anglosphere, have independent markets.

No it's not impossible to have a market the size of ours with less inequality. You could have more people all of whom are poorer. But for our population yes. We are the richest nation in the history of the world. The onus is actually on you to show beyond a reasonable doubt it can be done another way. The data we do have indicate that, even per capita, it would be impossible unless we had another country willing to spend money to alleviate our own governments mandate.

> That’s a really interesting argument that I hadn’t considered

With all due respect, then maybe you should sit and listen? Because this has been the main rallying cry of all the MAGA politicians. Look, I'm not even a huge Trump fan ( I voted for him once, but don't really like him, and still don't and hope we can all overcome this time as a country). But like, the Democrats simply don't listen.

Many poor Americans are mad America's funds go to help other countries while our own domestic needs are unmet. Meanwhile, those countries lecture us. While many here may have thought Vance's insistence that Zelensky thank America was asinine and crude, to many Americans, it expressed decades of frustration with European fecklessness. Were it not for the fact that most Americans trace ancestry to Europe, I think Europe would be much less developed.

[vict7]

I appreciate the discussion. Not entirely sure why you appear to be becoming somewhat incensed. I’ve been engaging in good faith.

I am aware of MAGA arguments and the continued expenditure of large amounts of money on other countries. I don’t think you have connected that well to inequality however.

I’m surprised that you treat the current way things are done in this country as monolithic. There are countless parameters to play with here… not just “what we have always done” and “throw all of that out and do everything different”.

> No it's not impossible to have a market the size of ours with less inequality.

Good, we agree on this.

[anon291]

> I don’t think you have connected that well to inequality however.

I don't really need to. I made a statement on how people feel. This is a common complaint you hear from MAGA supporters. Whether it's real or not really has no bearing on how people vote. In a democracy, representatives ought to listen to their constituents. One issue that's really common on the democrat side is they attempt to disagree with their constituents. This is why republican representatives and governors tend to be more popular. You can dismiss this as populism. It totally is. But, I mean, how can the democrats claim to be in favor of equality if they literally believe the average voter (presumably the one that deserves equality with 'the elite') needs to be lectured down to?

Not trying to be incensed, just asking the obvious questions. Me personally, I'm by all measures what people would consider the 'elite'. I don't really care either way personally. I'll be fine.

> Good, we agree on this.

Yeah, if America's economy were allowed to simply be, and we had less global involvement (including migration), then our economy would shift back to a normal human distribution of inequality. As it is, we are the world's guarantor of stability. For Europe, this includes military protectionism. But for all the world, including India and China, we take their most ambitious people here because they cannot handle them (historically, these countries end up killing their elite every few hundred years). Thus, we end up with extremely rich people. This is true of Trump's family as well. Clearly, his family had what it takes to make a ton of money and be wealthy. And Germany couldn't handle that so they sent them to America.

At the end of the day, it's the American immigration system and the American global police state (which are actually the same thing) that force America's economy into being more acutely unequal.