[tossandthrow]

Not rich enough compared to the individual productivity gains.

Don't tell me you have been fooled by the Chicago school of economics that has told you that relative wealth is indifferent as long as you can get a cheaper television.

[azan_]

Yes, out of two alternatives - large growth but largest in top decile vs no growth, the first one is absolutely 1000x times better. And we know that every alternative to capitalism leads to much smaller growth. Also it's not just television - it's smaller infant mortality, it's developing better therapies that save lives, it's basically every positive facet of existence (apart from housing, but for that neoliberals also have solution - LVT, unfortunately it will never be implemented).

[tossandthrow]

If love to see supporting long term evidence for this (ie, not just localized "see, stonks went up in the 90s").

If you think about it, it is clear that what you propose is not sustainable as there is a forced constant push on the spending distribution.

It will fail.

[azan_]

> If love to see supporting long term evidence for this (ie, not just localized "see, stonks went up in the 90s").

For what exactly, for growth? https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8... here

[tossandthrow]

That increasing inequality is generally preferable for everybody.

[azan_]

But that's not what I said.

[tossandthrow]

That is literally what you said

> large growth but largest in top decile vs no growth, the first one is absolutely 1000x times better