So let's grant that economic inequality is good in some cases.
Even if this is the case, reducing economic inequality may be the most efficient way to solve a wide variety of societal issues. E.g. how many societies are there with high inequality where the poor aren't discriminated against or pushed around by those with money?
Sure, in theory inequality isn't the same as:
- Regulatory capture
- The political system being owned by the super wealthy
- Endless war
- Environmental atrocities
- The dismantling of public infrastructure
- The completely dysfunctional healthcare system
- The privatization of public resources
But 'not the same as' doesn't mean unrelated, since inequality is what enables these things to occur. E.g. the rich can bribe politicians to pass laws that make them richer by allowing them to poison low-income minorities or whatever. And while reducing inequality may not be the perfect solution for the reasons stated, it's not clear that a better solution exists. (Sort of like how democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried or whatever.)
Even if economic inequality is intrinsically good, which I think it is, it doesn't follow that reducing inequality is bad.
Its almost certainly true that well-implemented policies of reducing income inequality would fix some of these problems, but that completely ignores negative side effects. The negative side effects are what makes that type of high level policy making bad.
What I'm saying is that if you take all the possible wealth distribution curves, the efficient frontier probably won't be at the extremes. That's not ignoring the negative side effects, rather it's cost-benefit analysis.
Comments
So let's grant that economic inequality is good in some cases.
Even if this is the case, reducing economic inequality may be the most efficient way to solve a wide variety of societal issues. E.g. how many societies are there with high inequality where the poor aren't discriminated against or pushed around by those with money?
Sure, in theory inequality isn't the same as:
- Regulatory capture
- The political system being owned by the super wealthy
- Endless war
- Environmental atrocities
- The dismantling of public infrastructure
- The completely dysfunctional healthcare system
- The privatization of public resources
But 'not the same as' doesn't mean unrelated, since inequality is what enables these things to occur. E.g. the rich can bribe politicians to pass laws that make them richer by allowing them to poison low-income minorities or whatever. And while reducing inequality may not be the perfect solution for the reasons stated, it's not clear that a better solution exists. (Sort of like how democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried or whatever.)
Even if economic inequality is intrinsically good, which I think it is, it doesn't follow that reducing inequality is bad.
Its almost certainly true that well-implemented policies of reducing income inequality would fix some of these problems, but that completely ignores negative side effects. The negative side effects are what makes that type of high level policy making bad.
What I'm saying is that if you take all the possible wealth distribution curves, the efficient frontier probably won't be at the extremes. That's not ignoring the negative side effects, rather it's cost-benefit analysis.