Julian658 wrote:Wow, you are way more enlightened than the average person in the planet. There is no equality! Even identical twins with same DNA and same upbringing achieve differently. There will always be a hierarchy of talent and competence. In most classrooms there is a kid that is smarter than the others. And sadly one that falls behind. The goal is to have less inequality but not by reducing the achievements of those on top.
You are correct that there is an hierarchy of talent and competence. But it is also true we have an hierarchy of wealth and privilege that is not tied to any hierarchy of talent and competence. Just because one has more wealth and is on top, does not necessarily mean they got there through talent and competence. Some are born on top and either choose to use their advantages that others do not have to develop their talent and competence and some born on top choose not to.
There are also those who are born on the bottom and don't have the same advantages and opportunities as those born on the top. They (those born on the bottom) will never have the same advantages as those born on the top. However, we should work to ensure those born on the bottom are not preyed upon by those at the top and also work to ensure that they are able to access more opportunities so that they can rise above their current station. The law should work to protect the weak from the strong on some level and not to enable the strong to better prey upon or exploit the weak.
Julian658 wrote:Inequality leads to revolution and no one wants a revolution. A poor person in 2019 has much more than a poor person in 1900 however, those at the bottom will compare themselves to those above them rather than with those that lived in the past. In theory we should look at absolute poverty rather than relative poverty which is tied to the wealth gap and inequality. Nevertheless, too much inequality is not a good idea.
I absolutely agree with part of your assessment here and I am unsure about the other part. Too much inequality is a bad idea. Inequality does not necessarily lead to revolution though. However, not having enough to provide for the basic necessities of life could possibly lead to revolution. If you can't put a roof over your head or food on the table despite working hard then you obviously do not have enough.
Most people would also like to be able to have some money to enjoy a vacation once and awhile or some leisure time in addition to having enough to provide a roof over their heads and food on the table. So instead of aiming for egalitarianism, we should instead be aiming to ensure that everybody has enough but may very well not have equal amounts of income and wealth as others. If people have enough to have their own roof over their head and food on the table as well as money for some leisure time or vacation once and awhile, perhaps their own car that will last awhile, health insurance and money saved for retirement then it is of less concern to people if others have more than them.
It is when those on top engage in economic gluttony at the expense of those beneath them on the economic ladder to where those below them on the economic ladder no longer have enough do we begin to have problems, political instability, political polarization and social unrest.
Julian658 wrote:This is a difficult problem indeed as the normal state of many humans is poverty. It is not so much about fighting what causes poverty but trying to discover what causes humans not to be poor. Having wealth is the exception whereas poverty is the normal baseline state. So what to do? It sounds too simplistic to just spread wealth. Those that receive wealth that they did not earn often become nihilistic.
Yes, it seems the normal state of humans is poverty. I don't have all the solutions. I wish I did. I am a democrat, so I believe in former President Obama's economic policies of "middle class economics." One of former President Clinton's economic advisors Robert Reich suggests creating counter-veiling power to the power of big corporations and big money that currently influence our politics. But it's about balance and not allowing things to swing too far from one extreme to the other. But again, I don't have all the answers. I would listen to those people who specialize in economics and listen to some of their ideas. Here is a video that has Robert Reich in it: