Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[KrazyHorse]

If we're defining absolute poverty as inability to meet basic needs, then there isn't much danger of failing to take into account the effect of more advanced phones on purchasing power.

No, this was the definition in 1960. Since then it has simply been updated by the Cpi.

[KrazyHorse]

If I was arguing against your point that would matter. I simply made my own point which you first countered with "no it isn't" and now have said it's true by definition.



An opportunity to ...

a) voluntarily reduce inequality and thus maximize overall utility while not limiting incentive? (the altruistic opportunity)
b) maximize inequality and thus reduce overall utility? (the opportunity to be a giagantic *******)
c) deny there is a problem with inequality because the problems with inequalities are only opportunities to fix the problems with inequalities by reducing inequality? (the broken window opportunity)

... I'm sure there's many other opportunities here. Which is the one you are speaking of?

Use the additional resources of the rich to redistribute to the poor without killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If the poor"s market incomes do not change, but those of the rich get higher, then it is an opportunity ...

[KrazyHorse]

The free education is for everyone, not just people who are considered to be in poverty. Lack of access to education isn't being included in the definition of poverty, it's just being pointed out that it's a barrier for those who would like to climb out of poverty and stop relying on free stuff from the government to meet their basic needs.

Anybody for whom the financial cost of education is a barrier in the us is DOING IT WRONG.

[giblets]

No, this was the definition in 1960. Since then it has simply been updated by the Cpi.

Okay. I really don't know if the CPI correlates well with the cost of basic needs or not. I'm guessing it wasn't designed for consumers living at the brink of poverty.

[Aeson]

Use the additional resources of the rich to redistribute to the poor without killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If the poor"s market incomes do not change, but those of the rich get higher, then it is an opportunity ...

This isn't dealing with inequality's intrinsic effects though. Unless perhaps you are viewing having (relatively) poor people as not a problem since it's an opportunity to help them out and thus not have as (relatively) poor people as you started with.

You're dealing with absolute values. Of course if there is more wealth overall, there is an opportunity for a higher overall utility. Inequality may benefit in this regard, as some people are driven to have more than others. That isn't really an opportunity intrinsic to diminished marginal utility though. Without diminishing marginal utility we would expect even more wealth to be generated as marginal incentive would not be diminishing along with utility.

Because the marginal dollar is less valuable to the rich than it is for the poor, it is more likely that a democratic solution will redistribute that dollar where it will be most useful. (I think this may be what you are driving at but you're being rather vague.) That would be the opportunity intrinsic to diminishing marginal utility, but implicitly implies there is a problem with inequality and/or poverty (even more vague on that).

My point, and the focus of the whole line of conversation descended from Kuci's claim and NYE's rhetorical, is that inequality has problems in and of itself that aren't simply attributable to the existence of poverty. As my initial post would suggest, I think there is a middle ground where the ratio of benefits to problems of inequality is maximized. However even that point is still very deficient when compared to the potential of A, which is if those with wealth voluntarily would distribute it where it had the most utility. (Regardless of how seemingly impossible that is for humanity in general at this time.)

[KrazyHorse]

1) nobody yet has seriously addressed the scale of the intrinsic jealousy problem of inequality
2) diminishing marginal utility is not an inherent problem; it provides an opportunity for a society with increasing inequality driven by the right tail
3) the rest of your post is too long and undoubtedly boring to read

[Kidlicious]

1) nobody yet has seriously addressed the scale of the intrinsic jealousy problem of inequality

That's because jealousy is not a problem. Jealous people are motivated to get more, and often do. The most jealous people get what they want. They are the rich.

2) diminishing marginal utility is not an inherent problem; it provides an opportunity for a society with increasing inequality driven by the right tail

No it doesn't. It transfers opportunity from the left to the right. And in the end you have less total utility which is the most important thing, economically speaking, not opportunity.

[Aeson]

1) scale is not necessary in a discussion of if something exists or not (past the scaling from 0 to > 0)
2) diminishing marginal utility has problems in and of itself (as well as benefits), already specifics there for your to address if you want
3) waaaaaaaah waaaaah waaaaaah

[KrazyHorse]

You're a moron who can't read and comprehend a plain English sentence.

Edit: that was aimed at kiddy

[KrazyHorse]

1) scale is not necessary in a discussion of if something exists or not (past the scaling from 0 to > 0)
2) diminishing marginal utility has problems in and of itself (as well as benefits), already specifics there for your to address if you want
3) waaaaaaaah waaaaah waaaaaah

Wtf? The first thing I did in this thread was acknowledge the issue of jealousy as real. My claim is that this jealousy is much smaller than the negative impacts which obviously arrive when government tries to level outcomes. Secondly, "diminishing marginal utility" does not change the sign of benefits to a society of the rich increasing their wealth holding that of the poor constant, which is what I take to be the scenario of increasing inequality without increasing poverty

[Kidlicious]

You're a moron who can't read and comprehend a plain English sentence.

Edit: that was aimed at kiddy

[KrazyHorse]

What's so funny, moron?

[Kidlicious]

Secondly, "diminishing marginal utility" does not change the sign of benefits to a society of the rich increasing their wealth holding that of the poor constant, which is what I take to be the scenario of increasing inequality without increasing poverty

That's a stupid point because it doesn't matter.

[Kidlicious]

What's so funny, moron?

You are because you try the same stupid crap.

[Aeson]

Wtf? The first thing I did in this thread was acknowledge the issue of jealousy as real.

Then you went ahead and said "no, it isn't" when I used the iPhone example to support my argument that there were intrinsic problems to inequality (envy being part of that).

My claim is that this jealousy is much smaller than the negative impacts which obviously arrive when government tries to level outcomes.

Which makes your responses to me a strawman as that wasn't what I was discussing with NYE. I had already explicitly stated that it was overall beneficial to continuing to have an (undefined) level of inequality to exist. I was simply addressing that there are problems with inequality in and of itself, since there had been claims (and rhetorical questions implying) that there weren't.

Secondly, "diminishing marginal utility" does not change the sign of benefits to a society of the rich increasing their wealth holding that of the poor constant, which is what I take to be the scenario of increasing inequality without increasing poverty

Actually the scenario was not affecting inequality (which was left undefined but existent), just eliminating poverty.

The problem intrinsic to diminishing marginal utility is that (all else equal) the incentive to earn the next dollar is less than the incentive to earn the last one. The problem with inequality as effected by DMU is that overall utility is lower than it would be compared to less equality with the same amount of wealth. (This can be overcome to an [not important to discuss for this issue] extent of course. But it's still a problem you are overcoming when doing so.)