Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Jon Miller]

The multiple political parties issue is a real issue, but not related to the wealthy donors/etc issue which this discussion was about.

I would put teacher unions up there too, it isn't just billionaire gambling moguls.

JM

[giblets]

Is the Economist seriously your litmus test for fiscal conservatism? Really? And somehow their *****ing about something in the US, like they do in virtually every issue, makes it obviously a real problem? The economist, like you, totally buys into the inequality nonsense--the idea that growing inequality is actually a problem and is somehow inherently unjust. This is just false. Inequality is everywhere and if we didn't have it we'd be in a wonderful Harrison Bergeron-esque ****hole. The most compelling case I've heard anyone make for reducing inequality is fear of some sort of French Revolution/Bolshevik uprising which to tell you the truth doesn't worry me.

You need to lay off the Tom Friedman talking points for a little bit.

How is inequality not a bad thing if it leads to outcomes like resources being used to build luxury yachts and mansions while many people don't even have enough to eat or lack medical care?

[DaShi]

HC isn't even responding to what you posted. In fact, none of his statements in that post actually connect with each other. He goes from saying that the inequality gap is good and tries to defend it with a Vonnegut short story comparison that is about something completely different. He once heard KH say something that income gaps are good and took it as gospel. He doesn't understand it, but that doesn't stop him from proselytizing about it.

[DaShi]

Give me a consistent reason why there is a rational middle ground for inequality. When do we know if there is "too much inequality"? Give me a rigorous definition. If you don't have one, it just means that you are basing your beliefs on some ridiculous gut feeling of right and wrong.

Which is exactly what you have been doing.

[Hauldren Collider]

How is inequality not a bad thing if it leads to outcomes like resources being used to build luxury yachts and mansions while many people don't even have enough to eat or lack medical care?

What you're talking about is poverty, not inequality.

[DaShi]

Because poverty is a leading cause of inequality. Poverty includes a severe lack of social capital.

[giblets]

What you're talking about is poverty, not inequality.

The fact that some people have very little has nothing to do with the distribution of stuff in your world?

[Kuciwalker]

The fact that some people have very little has nothing to do with the distribution of stuff in your world?

If you had no poverty and lots of inequality, that would not be a big deal. If you had no inequality and lots of poverty, that would be a huge problem. If you have both poverty and inequality, that implies that you can probably ameliorate some of poverty through policies that would also reduce inequality (e.g. redistribution), but it does not imply that any policy that reduces inequality would also reduce poverty. This is why the fixation on inequality is a bad thing*; it leads to poor policy decisions.

*it's also emotionally unhealthy. You don't have to be a Christian to recognize that a political movement based explicitly on envy is socially destructive.

[DaShi]

So you're basically in favor of caste systems.

[Jaguar]

Yes, that is literally exactly what Kuci wrote.

[DaShi]

Good, then I understand him.

[Jon Miller]

When you have large amounts of inequality, then you need a lot more protections for the weak from the strong.

I am not actually categorically against inequality. But then you need more protections against abuse by the wealthy.

Not 'oh, that is what is going to happen'. If that is your thinking, then you have to make strong pushes against inequality.

JM
(Actually, Sweden had pretty high levels of inequality during it's socialist era. It is just that those who were not the very rich were well cared for. (Income for Sweden was pretty low for everyone, so actually newly rich were pretty rare))

[Kuciwalker]

When you have large amounts of inequality, then you need a lot more protections for the weak from the strong.

This is not at all clear. The only thing that's reasonably clear is that inequality increases the returns to redistribution.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, that is literally exactly what Kuci wrote.

[MrFun]

Congress' approval rating is at something like 5%. What do you think the odds are that only 5% of incumbents are reelected come November?

Americans have a serious case of ADD and lack long-term memory. Those who are expressing anger with their current congressperson will likely vote for that person again, unfortunately.