[logicchains]

Wealth inequality doesn't cause ills, envy does. Envy should be regarded as a character defect, a sin, not something to be elevated to policy. You're not poorer because someone's richer than you, and indeed policies aimed to reduce wealth inequality will actually make you poorer, that's why average European salaries are much lower than US ones.

[simianwords]

The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality.

But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion. Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency and not just for the virtue of doing so.

[logicchains]

>The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality.

The only agency it reduces is the agency for people to make decisions about what should be done with other people's wealth. Which is not a productive agency for them to have as they've got an incredible conflict of interest to just waste it on themselves.

[simianwords]

I have changed my opinions on this. Land reform initiatives have been carried out globally at different points and it has been seen as broadly useful and necessary. Why?

Medial and pre-medieval times, debt cancellation was also broadly necessary and done. Why?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> The classic reply to this is that inequality reduces the agency of people to make decisions in the society - IOW it causes _power_ inequality.

Yes!

> But the reply to that is that it is orthogonal to the discussion.

Bafflegab.

> Power should be distributed in a way that increases efficiency

Sophistry. Why is "efficiency" a goal and how would you even define it?

Look at the current pollical great power of Oligarchs. Does this strike you as "efficient"? I see it as producing poor outcomes, and that's all.

[cyberjerkXX]

All human relationships have inequalities. Attempting to use the government to destroy hierarchies is utopian bullshit. It always leads to worse outcomes than intendent because humans are imperfect. Intentions should never be the measure of success, only outcomes.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Attempting to use the government to destroy hierarchies is utopian

yes, "destroy hierarchies" is utopian. But that's a complete straw man version of "reduce very high levels of inequality that have highly visible political impacts".

[simianwords]

Non trivial number of people believe that everyone is equal in abilities. Non trivial number of people believe that communism is a preferable end goal - a goal that excludes hierarchies from forming.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Non trivial number of people believe that everyone is equal in abilities.

really? Have you ever met anyone like this?

Cool story, but also another straw man - not relevant to the article and to "We should absolutely aim to lower this gap".

[watwut]

Those hierarchies are the result and consequence of goverment being captured by super rich.

Removing it and weakening sociopathic predators is correct. They will cauase less damage when they are not constantly given advantages.

[mcphage]

> Wealth inequality doesn't cause ills, envy does.

No, it really is the wealth inequality.

[danbruc]

Envy is the completely wrong framing, it is about fairness. If you design widgets and 99 people build them and everyone works the same number of hours, then the fair share is 1 % for everyone. One percent of the work, one percent of the profit. If you take 2 % [1] while everyone else only gets 0.99 %, that is unfair. And look, the difference for each individual is tiny, 0.99 % or 1 %, that makes it easy to dismiss despite being the source of the unfair inequality.

[1] 1.99 % if we want to be precise.

[gadders]

What about the chap that mortgaged his house to rent a factory and buy a widget maker and employs these people? What % should he take?

[danbruc]

He will get the same as the others if he works the same number of hours to run the company. The dept would ideally be company debt and not personal dept, after all one reason to found a company is to separate personal and business risks. But if you invest personal money in the company, you get that money back plus some risk and opportunity premium just as you would pay back any other loan. What fraction that is will of course depend on the amount, premium, and payback period. Just investing some money will not provide you a perpetual income.

[gadders]

That sounds like an amazing way to stop people taking risks to start companies.

[danbruc]

Only people that see businesses primarily as a way to get rich and not as a way to satisfy consumer demand while doing something you like.

[gadders]

Well it should be both, no?