Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Elok]

All this disrespect for humanity coming from a fellow physician. I'm shocked! Shocked!
Just you wait another twenty years more.

That reminds me: I stepped on a rusty nail a couple of weeks back, and I heard that can give you AIDS or some **** like that. But my cousin, he says no, you need to like have sex with monkeys or something. Anyway, I drank one of those energy drinks that boosts your immune system the next day, so it should be okay. I just thought you should know since you're a doctor and stuff.

[giblets]

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.

So if there is a high level of inequality, then the political process has failed to take available opportunities to reduce poverty.

[DaShi]

No, Kuci is saying that high levels of inequality are fine. Thus, we can now justify disenfranchising certain groups based on...

[Elok]

Er, can anyone name a society where there's lots of inequality but not lots of poverty? I can't think of one--okay, most poor people in the U.S. are pretty well-off compared to what they call poor in China, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be them, especially if it weren't for food stamps and things like that. And we do have a fair number of people who are in genuine, desperate want.

[Jaguar]

No, Kuci is saying that high levels of inequality are fine. Thus, we can now justify disenfranchising certain groups based on...

Yes, that is literally exactly what Kuci wrote.

[DaShi]

Yes, that is literally exactly what I wrote.

[Kuciwalker]

So if there is a high level of inequality, then the political process has failed to take available opportunities to reduce poverty.

Maybe. Probably! But you can't go from there to saying "this policy would reduce inequality, therefore it is good". And yet precisely that sort of argument is the vogue.

[Kuciwalker]

Er, can anyone name a society where there's lots of inequality but not lots of poverty? I can't think of one--okay, most poor people in the U.S. are pretty well-off compared to what they call poor in China, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be them, especially if it weren't for food stamps and things like that. And we do have a fair number of people who are in genuine, desperate want.

Can you name any societies without lots of poverty, as you perceive it?

[Jaguar]

Er, can anyone name a society where there's lots of inequality but not lots of poverty? I can't think of one--okay, most poor people in the U.S. are pretty well-off compared to what they call poor in China, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be them, especially if it weren't for food stamps and things like that. And we do have a fair number of people who are in genuine, desperate want.

There is extreme poverty, in some sense, in every country. I expect this to remain the case until mental health services are considerably more effective than they currently are.

[DaShi]

I hardly think that mental health is the sole solution to extreme poverty.

[Jon Miller]

Maybe. Probably! But you can't go from there to saying "this policy would reduce inequality, therefore it is good". And yet precisely that sort of argument is the vogue.

I Don't think so, otherwise people would suggest things like 'kill the 10 of the top 10000 wealthiest americans every year'.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

I Don't think so, otherwise people would suggest things like 'kill the 10 of the top 10000 wealthiest americans every year'.

JM

They do.

[Kuciwalker]

For a less extreme version, see the arguments for wealth taxes and estate taxes.

[giblets]

Maybe. Probably! But you can't go from there to saying "this policy would reduce inequality, therefore it is good". And yet precisely that sort of argument is the vogue.

You're right, we obviously have to look at various alternative methods of reducing inequality and their effects to be sure that a policy is actually beneficial. There are of course some caveats but the fact remains that inequality is a problem.

[Elok]

Can you name any societies without lots of poverty, as you perceive it?

How poor is Sweden? I'd look it up myself, but I've got to go to my crappy McJob in about five minutes.