Why relative inequality matters

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Your link is broken (at least when I tried it), but the paragraph you quote and the stuff you claim reminds me rhetorically of YEC's who maintain the long discredited notion that the Earth is only 6000-10,000 years old. I find it almost quaint that people still cling to the leftist class warfare nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ] In other words, you have absolutely no reasonable response to my post, so you decided to fill the thread with empty rhetoric.

The link still works for me, but I'll post it again anyway. Link

[Copernicus]

and of course it has nothing to do with the low population density in the US, which makes mass transit far less efficient than in most industrialized nations. In regions with critical density, the US mass transit system is comparable to most

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, as I sort of implied in my first post, this above explanation is a false one. The politicians basically screwed the public at the behest of General Motors and Standard Oil and a few other corporations.


[/ QUOTE ] This isn't false at all; while what you are saying is true to a degree, and a different degree in different nations-and I'm completely aware of the fact that economic inequality leads to political inequality and undermining democracy; that was one of the reasons given in the OP for being concerned about relative inequality-the fact is that even in the U.S. the factor I was giving played a role, and would have played a larger role, if it wasn't for gov't being directly influenced by $/market forces.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
and of course it has nothing to do with the low population density in the US, which makes mass transit far less efficient than in most industrialized nations. In regions with critical density, the US mass transit system is comparable to most

[/ QUOTE ]

Additional reading about the inaccuracies that form the basis for "Taken for a Ride".

part II

part 1

Like most conspiracy theories, a blend of fact and fiction can go a long way toward making things appear far different than they actually were.

[WordWhiz]

Hypothetical question for Proprietarian:

If attempts to remedy relative inequality (even successful attempts) slowed down the rate of growth of the economy and the rate of technological progress, would you still be in favor of them?

Two points to keep in mind before you answer: technological growth tends to be exponential, so slowing it down by even .001% may have serious consequences centuries down the line; and population growth is (or at least has been) exponential, so the number of people harmed by even a small delay in technological innovation can be quite large compared to those helped by govt remedying inequality decades or centuries earlier.

[peritonlogon]

While, I'm not propertarian, this is among the strangest hypotheticals I've read.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]

If attempts to remedy relative inequality (even successful attempts) slowed down the rate of growth of the economy and the rate of technological progress, would you still be in favor of them?

[/ QUOTE ] It depends on the rate. Economic growth is not some god that we sacrifice everything for; if it comes into conflict with other values, those other values may take priority.

I'd also be willing to give up some economic growth for better working conditions and more and better democracy, for example.

[ QUOTE ]

Two points to keep in mind before you answer: technological growth tends to be exponential, so slowing it down by even .001% may have serious consequences centuries down the line; and population growth is (or at least has been) exponential, so the number of people harmed by even a small delay in technological innovation can be quite large compared to those helped by govt remedying inequality decades or centuries earlier.

[/ QUOTE ] But lessening relative inequality can, in some scenarios, give millions of people who don't have access to vaccines, running water, safe working conditions, medicine, etc. that they didn't have at all before.

Both technological advances and decreasing relative inequality can have huge positive effects on human wellbeing when we come up with extreme situations.

And technological advances can be dangerous as well; environmental destruction, advances in weaponry, advances in surveilance, externalities etc. It's not all positive.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Your link is broken (at least when I tried it), but the paragraph you quote and the stuff you claim reminds me rhetorically of YEC's who maintain the long discredited notion that the Earth is only 6000-10,000 years old. I find it almost quaint that college students still cling to the leftist class warfare nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

fixed it for you.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
if wealthier people come to have access to new technologies, and if access to important goods get mediated through access to those technologies, then the poor who lack such access will find it harder and more expensive to supply their needs. You can run this one from everything from cars and out-of-town shopping centres to the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of these points are based on false premises and hypothetics. There's a lot of "ifs" in that paragraph.

And not only that but his examples are easily refuted. The internet is more accessible today than ever before, *despite* that wealth inequality is supposedly increasing and *despite* that it is a new technology.

It reads like a conclusion in search of reason. this is typical of apologists in general. It reads very much like someone trying to show the earth is actually flat despite everything we know to the contrary.

natedogg

[hmkpoker]

Propertarian-

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, in direct contradiction to your ostensible critique of this argument, generally speaking, the more people who have access to these new technologies, the larger the negative effect on those who do not have access.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the net social effect of a new technology positive or negative? How would we measure such a thing?

If negative, doesn't it logically follow that we should ban all innovations (and probably any self-maximizing activity)?

If positive, why should we care?