Hall Of Fame
The terms left and right arent really useful anymore. It may sound slightly pompous but in a world flooded with misinformation the terms evidence-based policy and non-evidence based policy seem more suitable.
Its evidential that high levels of wealth inequality lead to poorer outcomes, that children should be kept out of poverty wherever possible and by the state if necessary, that utilities, transport networks and healthcare work better when there?s no one making a profit from them, that crime is reduced through rehabilitation and lifting people out of poverty, that high levels of immigration are necessary when birth rates are low, that trade works better with fewer barriers, and the climate emergency is currently the biggest threat to humanity.
That?s not an exhaustive list, but what many people describe as the right left the scene long ago when it comes to evidence based policy, so much so that previously accepted facts like the effectiveness of vaccines or a woman?s right to reproductive autonomy are now things to be argued about. People and policies that would previously have been considered the lunatic fringe now find themselves mainstreamed and in power. Theres a reason billionaires own newspapers, tv stations and social media platforms and that?s to promote their own interests and persuade others to vote against theirs.
Hall Of Fame
Pretty much total agreement with you except for this.Originally Posted by BigFatPie
It isn't the inequality that's doing this. If you have a trillion pounds but I have everything I need, I am unharmed by this. Indeed, if you're investing wisely, I'll benefit, in the long run.
It's inequality + erosion of basic welfare + erosion of worker's bargaining power (and therefore real wages) that's causing harm, IMO.
Hall Of Fame
Actually I think it's true. Wealth inequality is a major factor in driving violent crime and a lack of social cohesion, especially if social mobility is low. This is the case even if the poorest people in such a society aren't actually that poor on a global scale.
Anecdotally, I see this first hand when I lived in the Czech Republic. Being a post-communist country, society isn't as stratified there. Most people are somewhere in the middle, with a few very rich and very poor outliers. The middle section is poorer overall than the British middle class by some way, but overall, there's much less violent crime and much higher social cohesion - at least it seemed that way. As that society becomes more stratified and the middle class shrinks, violent crime will probably go up - even if GDP per capita also goes up. I see that unfolding over the years.
I also agree that everyone having more overall helps. But "having everything I need" is subjective.
Last edited by slack_pie; 24-01-2025 at 12:55 PM.
Hall Of Fame
I would say that anyone who’s a trillionaire or even a billionaire hasnt been taxed enough personally or through their corporation. The if in that sentence is doing an awful lot of hard work. Have the likes of Musk, Zuckerberg or Bezos invested wisely for societal benefit? It’s passed me by if they have.
That last bit is 100% correct, erosion of welfare and reduction of worker’s rights are the basic tools of wealth to protect their interests.
Hall Of Fame
Zuckerberg did advance the field of social media massively. Bezos pioneered online retail and maintained it in the fact of ridicule in the early days. Musk brought electric motor vehicles back into the mainstream.
And all of them made mistakes. Musk appears to be an insufferable git of epic proportions.
But I ask, what is the alternative? Do you advocate total wealth equality? Everyone has to have the same income and assets? Who decides what businesses invest in? Who decides who runs the businesses? Some government board? I think the results would be far worse.
For all its faults, free market capitalism does operate more as a meritocracy than any bureaucracy or democracy I've ever witnessed. Of course there's the problem of inherited wealth and I think you could argue that doing away with that would be of benefit.
Hall Of Fame
I agree with most of that. I understand what BFP is saying - it's pretty crazy that some people can acquire so much wealth that they could never conceivably spend it all. That said, on a philosophical level, I'm uncomfortable with the state having the power to decide how much money someone is allowed to acquire through legal means.
Of course mega-wealthy people should be taxed, but saying that people cannot become billionaires or trillionaires seems fundamentally wrong to me. People should be free to earn as much (or as little) as they like, with measures in place to stop people falling through the cracks and provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.
Free-market capitalism results in "unfairness", but that's an inevitable result of free people making free choices. And yes, we are all born with advantages and disadvantages, but you can only iron those out through extreme overreach and control that inevitably ends in tyranny.
Don't agree about inherited wealth though. A big part of the motivation for me to save money and build wealth is so that I can pass it on to my kids. It's my money, so it's their money, not the state's.
Hall Of Fame
Brilliant conversation gents, long may it continue.
Hall Of Fame
Yeah that's the counterargument and it's why I used such wishy-washy weasel words. You could argue doing away with it would be of benefit, but people also argue (compellingly) that it should stay.
Personally I would rather we worked collectively to give the next generation the best (fair) chance possible, and to an extent we do. But yeah, I don't have strong feelings about inherited wealth.
What I find interesting about threads like these is how close we are to universal agreements on so many things. And yet the media have us yelling at each other over whether dickhead of the year ten years running did a nazi salute or not, or what the liar of the year for ten years running has claimed he's going to do next. Or who should pee in which toilet.
That's not a coincidence, IMO. I really do think there's a kind of non-spiracy of those in power keeping the commoners snapping at each other so we don't guillotine them all. Because they really are screwing up a lot at the moment and while some of them got where they are at least partially on merit, a lot did not.
Hall Of Fame
There?s no doubt those three gentlemen have done things that benefit us all in the process of acquiring their wealth, but that?s not what you originally proposed. What have they done with the wealth they?ve acquired? I suppose some my say Musk has somewhat stepped into the void that has been left by US governments refusing to fund space exploration to the tune that they did, and the starlink program is good, but whether they?re done for altruistic purposes or whether that matters is another question.
No I?m by no means advocating total wealth equality, far from it. But the historic gains we made during the course of the 20th century in partially levelling up to use that awful phrase are in danger of being totally lost by unchecked capitalism, if they haven?t already done so. It will take brave politicians to grasp the nettle, and we?ve already seen the pushback even to the very modest proposals made by Starmer?s government, I?m not sure if he has the stomach to go further. People are easily seduced by demagoguery and easy solutions, and wealth is fantastically efficient at protecting wealth.
Hall Of Fame
This is completely true
This is complete garbage, if everyone is poor like in many developing countries there isn't the resource available to invest in the young.
Another complete bag of garbage that is clouded by your opinion. You seem the think that those that have the same opinion as you are right and those that disagree are wrong. The social media platforms and governments colluded to cover up problems with the vaccines that were supposed to be effective against Covid. Even today you are not able to post things on youtube that goes against the left wing narrative. Experts in their field were silenced from the main platforms at the behest of the US and EU as what they were saying didn't agree with that narrative. You only have to look into the lies that the "left wing" media pushes out, the Guardian and the Independent are renown for lying about what is going on and too many "on the left" accept it as gospel.
Here's the thing, and i know I've stated it so many times. The established media all of them are lying. They push narratives that will agree with the opinions of their target audience but will also make those that disagree with them angry. If they get people angry then it is more likely that one of those angry people will post it with a link so they get more visits to their site.
You keep going on about things like the Murdock press, well what about "left wing" media sites that are controlled by billionaires, you give them a free pass but they are all doing the same thing. Push out articles that will agree with their target audience but will nudge them in the "correct" direction but will also anger those that disagree with them so that enough of them post links that will drive traffic to their sites.
Also we have people complaining about Musk getting involved with politics, where is the anger when Bill Gates and George Soros get involved or are you only angry when they are pushing opinions you disagree with
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote