A global study led by a researcher at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and published in the journal Scientific Reports finds that economic inequality on a social level cannot be explained by bad choices among the poor nor by good decisions among the rich. Poor decisions were the same across all income groups, including for people who have overcome poverty.
I would challenge that any society which has any significant amount of wealth disparity wouldn’t eventually devolve into “whoever makes the most money gets to make the rules”. Money is an abstraction of human value, so if one person has significantly more abstract-value than most people, their power and influence will always be more than people who have less even if it isn’t as direct as our system via eg lobbying. On top of that, any economic system which has even the slightest asymptotic behavior towards wealth consolidation will eventually have wealth disparity.
Personally I like economic systems that use money as a price signal because of how decentralized it can be, but I’m not sure how you would avoid these tendencies without some major overhaul in the fundamental principles. Market socialism is at least better, since no one solely owns the means of production so it’s harder to accumulate wealth but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it isn’t possible at all.
Maybe a change in ethos like you said, competition can inspire innovation but it can also lead to tremendous waste as competitors reinvent their own wheels. Encouraging cooperation in tandem with competition could produce a more well-rounded society, but there will always be sociopaths who want power for its own sake and will naturally rise to the top and ruin whatever good thing we have going on. Maybe something like radical anarchism, which rejects (unjustified) hierarchy and makes it exceptionally difficult for anyone to gain coercive power? Fat chance ever implementing something like that, though.
We could get by with our current system we have, simply change the tax system to tax profit way more, so that it’s impossible to become a billionaire. And all that money is used to keep everyone housed, fed, and healthy. The people that want to abuse people for profit won’t have anyone to abuse anymore because people won’t be forced to work in unfair jobs with unfair wages. Wages will rise to natural level to meet what people think those jobs are worth doing. Some companies will find this unsustainable and will go away, and good riddance.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I would challenge that any society which has any significant amount of wealth disparity wouldn’t eventually devolve into “whoever makes the most money gets to make the rules”. Money is an abstraction of human value, so if one person has significantly more abstract-value than most people, their power and influence will always be more than people who have less even if it isn’t as direct as our system via eg lobbying. On top of that, any economic system which has even the slightest asymptotic behavior towards wealth consolidation will eventually have wealth disparity.
Personally I like economic systems that use money as a price signal because of how decentralized it can be, but I’m not sure how you would avoid these tendencies without some major overhaul in the fundamental principles. Market socialism is at least better, since no one solely owns the means of production so it’s harder to accumulate wealth but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it isn’t possible at all.
Maybe a change in ethos like you said, competition can inspire innovation but it can also lead to tremendous waste as competitors reinvent their own wheels. Encouraging cooperation in tandem with competition could produce a more well-rounded society, but there will always be sociopaths who want power for its own sake and will naturally rise to the top and ruin whatever good thing we have going on. Maybe something like radical anarchism, which rejects (unjustified) hierarchy and makes it exceptionally difficult for anyone to gain coercive power? Fat chance ever implementing something like that, though.
We could get by with our current system we have, simply change the tax system to tax profit way more, so that it’s impossible to become a billionaire. And all that money is used to keep everyone housed, fed, and healthy. The people that want to abuse people for profit won’t have anyone to abuse anymore because people won’t be forced to work in unfair jobs with unfair wages. Wages will rise to natural level to meet what people think those jobs are worth doing. Some companies will find this unsustainable and will go away, and good riddance.