The Mathematics of Inequality
now.tufts.edu
now.tufts.edu
A rational billionaire would realize that he have nothing to gain from more wealth and would live the rest of his life in lavish and luxury (while donating 99.9% of it if he cares about public opinion), aiming to spend all of it before he dies. So if billionaires were rational we wouldn't have such a large inequality.
Similarly if poor people were rational they would organize against rich people, forcing them to share their wealth in one way or another. This could either be via violence or they could democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them or they could even unionize to gain power.
The question then isn't how we stop inequality when all actors are rational, but how we stop inequality when some people have irrational tendencies to hoard wealth while others irrationally prefers to vote for those who stands for some abstract ideals rather than those who would give them the most monetary rewards.
good thing we live in a "republic". This line smacks of wanton theft. The poor should have a reason to be "given" money other than just being "poor" (as the standard reasoning with 'wealth distributors'), similarly, the rich should have a good reason to have their money stolen other than just being "rich".
Bezos BUILT something, Oprah BUILT something. Just because they're rich and you're not doesn't mean you deserve to be. This country (USA) - at least in theory - is about equal OPPORTUNITY - NOT "Equal Outcome".
Life Isn't FAIR. Stop trying to make everyone equal when they clearly aren't. Some people put in more work, have better ideas, better skills, attention to details, and follow through, while others do not.
You may never steal directly from your neighbor or friend, but voting for the government to do it is the same thing.
When wealthy donors, lobbyists, and corporations pour money into the political system to affect laws, distribution, incentives, outcomes it is "speech."
If life isn't fair, then why do you care about something you call theft? I'm not reading a self-consistent critique here.
when someone CHOOSES to give money towards a cause, it IS speech. (granted, most don't agree the citizens united ruling, but mainly because it allows a corporation to have "more" speech than you or I). This is not a problem with the law, this is a problem with money in politics. Solve that problem (like only money from companies/people from within the district is allowed or something), and you solve the 'citizens united' problem.
Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean I GIVE You my money. I should have every right to keep it without being robbed at gunpoint (IRS) - by lazy socialists who don't understand how business works, have never run a business or "democratic-mob-rules-socialists-who-abuse-government-to-do-their-dirty-work".
No, its not.
I mean, sure, an economic system is always imposed by a political system, and some modern political systems have in their theoretical background an ideal of being established through free agreement, but that ideal is never actually fully realized in those systems, and plenty of political systems don't even have that in theory; in practice, participants in an economic system mostly do not get there as part of any agreement, and especially not a free and uncoerced agreement.
And economic systems often (in practice, always) involve violence and only avoid theft in that “theft” is defined as that which defies the rules of the state.
They're members of a society and that society has enabled them to amass tons of wealth, it's not unfair to require them to return some of it.
Also, LOL at the irony of someone proclaiming that life isn't fair while simultaneously denouncing redistribution of resources as 'wanton theft'. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Most other species don't have this sort of genetic makeup, so it wouldn't be rational for most of us non-Hymenopterae to mimic the social order of such insects.
I think you're trying to make an argument based on the game theoretic definition of "rational" rather than the common definition of rational which would correspond to game theory's "superrational". That is, a rational choice based on the common knowledge that all others are following the same playbook. Sure, hymenopterans have a better genetic incentive to favour superrational behaviour but that doesn't stop upstart queens appearing in a hive (and often getting destroyed, but not always).
What you are describing is a moral judgement about what people should "value", not how they make choices conditional on what they value. Rationality is not a technically correct term here.
That definition is correct but it isn't useful which is why it is never used in models. In the end we need to assume that the actors values something and that assumption will have a huge impact for any mathematical model. So the point is that since our assumptions about what people value can have so large consequences the maths doesn't really matter, it all comes down to people choosing their assumptions such that the result verifies their own beliefs.
> if poor people were rational they would organize against rich people
These seem at odds. If poor people were rational, the billionaire would have something to gain from wealth; protection against the poor...
In any case, I don't think it's true: The poor are more likely to be successful aiming for poorer targets, meaning they have more to fear from other poor, and less expected success in targeting the rich. That, and acting out of self-interest when poor can turn against you when you aren't..
> irrational tendencies to hoard wealth
The more wealth you have, the lower the risk of being poor. You are only doing the calculation:
(money obtained) - (money needed)
(money obtained)(chance of keeping money) - (money needed)
(chance of keeping money) = A + B*log[(money obtained)]
(money desired) = (money needed per person lifetime) * (number of dependents)I don't really think this is a great description of free market transactions at all. Do you regret the decision anywhere close to 50% of the time when you buy groceries, pay rent, or buy new boots? Does the grocer, landlord or shoe store owner regret it anywhere close to 50% if the time? The answer is no in both cases.