Inequality and Injustice

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I want to hear something from our conservative/libertarian/right-wing buddies here.

I want an answer to a few question I have.

What level of wealth inequality would annoy you?

At what point does income inequality become an injustice?

If there was documented evidence that the super-rich conspire to keep as much wealth as possible in the hands of a few while pre-emptively shutting down the complaints of the masses, would that bother you?

Edit:

If anyone doubts that the third question is not mere theory, but established fact, here's your link

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'What level of wealth inequality would annoy you?'

None, because wealth inequality is the 'palm reading' of econometrics. It literally means nothing.

'If there was documented evidence that the super-rich conspire to keep as much wealth as possible in the hands of a few while pre-emptively shutting down the complaints of the masses, would that bother you? '

Yea, because it'd mean we somehow transitioned into a communist state.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"Yea, because it'd mean we somehow transitioned into a communist state."

WHAT.
THE.
HELL.
????

go ahead, sage, explain that one to my idiotic self. cause i dont understand.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"None, because wealth inequality is the 'palm reading' of econometrics. It literally means nothing"

How exactly does that work? If you have lots of wealth, and I have no wealth, there is wealth inequality. It has a definite and definitive meaning. Which portion of that is difficult for you to understand?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

WRT to the last one. Look into Citigroup Plutonomy Memos.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't classify myself as "conservative/libertarian/right-wing" at all -- but i would have to agree that "wealth inequality" is not really the issue. In fact, harping on that particular symptom makes much of the left look rather juvenile.

The problem is not how much the rich have. It's how little opportunity workers have.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What about the third question?

When the rich get together amongst themselves and talk about how good the rich have it and how the bottom 60% isn't really important, cause they only have as much $$ as the top 1%, and they craft all sorts of ways to keep it that way then I see it as a problem.

And I find it sad that you think it's juvenile to focus on the key issue of our time. It's not a symptom, it's a direct result of the plutocrats organizing themselves and using their power/status to keep the plebians from organizing themselves.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"So long as I'm doing well enough in my own life and am content in my existence, that the rich man down the street (or across the bay) makes a significantly greater sum of money than myself does not really bother me."

So, essentially, you are of the "fuck you jack, i got mine" kind of camp?


While to say that the entire 1% act in a homogenous manner, is, of course wrong, and I'm not doing it, to say that members of the 1% act in a homogenous manner when it comes to keeping/increasing their power, and having no problem doing so at the expense of others. Such documented evidence is something the 1% does not want the 99% to know about, but it exists and it should cause some populist anger.

Yet, here, I'm seeing little more than apathy about it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

. That said, my standards for how well I am doing in my life are not based on comparison to others

You're immune?


, so it's difficult for me to say "When X person has Y amount more money/possessions/power than me, it is now no longer okay."

It may not be merely money, possession or power, but autonomy and freedom - security and health.

I would have to say 'no, not really' because people with any sort of power have always conspired

Just because its been going on for quite a while, doesn't mean it doesn't suck.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Very well said, sir. Welcome to Talk_Politics, by the way. We can always use a few extra level heads in the crowd.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

As long as the right-wing rich get to engineer the redistribution of wealth via tax policy covered over with Social Security, and we don't make it the central part of the discussion, there's no point in talking about it. We are firmly within a production of wealth at the expense of the family, and not only the production of wealth, but the redistribution of wealth up the chain via tax policies.

The problem is just that's the way it is and it is largely invisible.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I mean, we can use simple every-day metrics to demonstrate the effect: double-income families are becoming the norm for our generation. And this isn't because people are living unsustainably luxurious lifestyles. Just getting a starter-home requires two incomes nowadays. Forget the cell-phones and iPads, the real estate system is evolving into a lease-only enterprise, which retains the wealth within the upper crust while returning to a rent-society of the past.

Just wait until it becomes very clear that there is more wealth in the world per capita than there ever has been before, and watch when people say that we have to "live within our means". They'll gut Social Security and Medicare because "there is no other choice" and any number of things. The government serves one purpose: to enrich the powerful.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

When they needed food shelter or clothing but couldn't afford it.

Then it would bother them.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That sounds about right.

I'm still simply dumbfounded that Bogey saw communism in our hyper-capitalist country.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

This is a pretty informative video by Paul Krugman talking about this in 2007, and the situation has become much worse since then.

I thought you may like it ;)

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

What level of wealth inequality would annoy you?

Annoy? I'm annoyed at the neighbors across the street, they're too noisy.

I'm not guaranteed to not be annoyed in this life. My threshhold for my own personal happiness/unhappiness is not that low.

At what point does income inequality become an injustice?

Define an injustice? If someone has more than I do, I can waste my resources being jealous and resentful of that, or I can do something what I perceive as my own lack of... things. Whatever.

Perhaps if something is taken from me by force and I have no recourse, that's in injustice.

If there was documented evidence that the super-rich conspire to keep as much wealth as possible in the hands of a few while pre-emptively shutting down the complaints of the masses, would that bother you?

If laws were broken, they should be prosecuted. Which, I may add, is the responsibility of the government. Now there you get into territory that horks me off, because the lack of prosecution is a true injustice. But again, who is supposed to do that?

Here's some inequality that annoys me: Democrats and Republicans declaring that $40 a week is a lot to American families when they've put me and you personally in debt to the tune of $43,513 each. And climbing. Patronizing, manipulating claptrap.

[ghoststrider.livejournal.com]

What level of wealth inequality would annoy you?

None. There will always be inequality in wealth, and it matters not to poverty anyways. Think of this example: let's say the poorest in a society still gained around $50,000 a year, while the richest made about $10 billion a year. Absolutely ridiculous wealth inequality, but even the poorest are still fantastically well off, so it doesn't really matter.

At what point does income inequality become an injustice?

Going off of question 1, none. Income inequality is not injustice.

If there was documented evidence that the super-rich conspire to keep as much wealth as possible in the hands of a few while pre-emptively shutting down the complaints of the masses, would that bother you?

Now this is an injustice. We call this "corporatism" or "crony capitalism," and it happens every day in the United States. With this I will stand with Occupy Wall Street, for we must root it out wherever it lies. It distorts markets, rewards ineffiency, robs freedom and resources from others, and let's just face it, it's mammothly unfair.

So, in conclusion, wealth inequality itself is not bad, but those using government power and force to keep others from gaining resources and wealth through their own means (and by voluntary ones, at that) are a bad thing.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

This makes sense to me. The income inequality that exists in the US today is a symptom of a set of injustices -- including "crony capitalism" and the hyper-securitization of productive resources. It is not injustice an sich.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What level of wealth inequality would annoy you?

Any significant level that is caused by government action.

At what point does income inequality become an injustice?

When the government is causing it by limiting people's ability to move economically.

If there was documented evidence that the super-rich conspire to keep as much wealth as possible in the hands of a few while pre-emptively shutting down the complaints of the masses, would that bother you?

No, because the super rich lack that power. And your link doesn't really prove anything except that there are some who write memos for Citi that agree with your point of view that inequality is increasing at the expense of the lower classes and feel the need to have a plan in place about it.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

The super-rich lack that power?!!!!?

Also, if .001% of the people owned 99.999% of the wealth, you'd be TOTALLY OK with that?
That's sad and horrifying.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

What level of wealth inequality would annoy you?
1. None.

At what point does income inequality become an injustice?
2. Never. Actions that are done to get to that point may be injustices, but they would have to looked at individually.

If there was documented evidence that the super-rich conspire to keep as much wealth as possible in the hands of a few while pre-emptively shutting down the complaints of the masses, would that bother you?
3. Too vague to answer. I would need specific actions in order to judge those actions.

For example, SOPA is a problem, yes.

[wristtattoos.livejournal.com]

What level of wealth inequality would annoy you?
None.

At what point does income inequality become an injustice?
When it becomes illegal.

If there was documented evidence that the super-rich conspire to keep as much wealth as possible in the hands of a few while pre-emptively shutting down the complaints of the masses, would that bother you?
WELL DUH. If I had that kind of money, I'd want to hang on to it myself.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

1.) Do you care about anyone other than yourself?

2.) would it bother you if that person needed healthcare and was refused due to lack of funds?

If you answered yes to both, then you've contradicted your original reply.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

As a former conservative, I'll bite. Gotta agree especially with Panookah. Using the term "injustice" implies an absolute definition of "justice" that simply doesn't exist. Pull that language, stick to objective measures of societal harm/benefit, and you've got a decent conversation.

What level of wealth inequality would annoy you?

The level at which the harm posed by the inequality becomes annoying. One cannot answer that question without considering testable circumstances to measure the harm (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why).

At what point does income inequality become an injustice?

Again, "justice" is measured by a society's values, not by any absolute decree or precedent. Wrong question, one that interferes with any answers.

As to your third question, duh. Being super-rich means finding ways of staying super-rich. I don't fault people from pursuing a self-preservation strategy. It's in their best interest, after all. The question should be not that this happens, but that society should judge which strategies are and are not appropriate.

(Seriously, read The Spirit Level, the book that goes more in depth to the graphs found at the link. If you care about this issue at all, you must start there.)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

It's in their best interest, after all

Is it?

Is it best to hoard the biggest bowl of money when you can catch diseases from the corpses rotting upstream?

I make a lot more money than my wife. Should I force her to go without health care because I can save a few bucks?

I'm not sure its a given that greed is in ones best interest.

[404.livejournal.com]

What level of wealth inequality would annoy you?
Wealth inequality doesn't bother me, inequality of opportunity does.

At what point does income inequality become an injustice?
None, see answer one.

If there was documented evidence that the super-rich conspire to keep as much wealth as possible in the hands of a few while pre-emptively shutting down the complaints of the masses, would that bother you?
There are always concentrations of power/money rested with a small group of people: look at the communist countries, who are supposed to be workers paradises to be one of the worst offenders...

Is the second part of your question your perception of the US, or just your imagination?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Inequality of opportunity bothers conservatives only in theory, they scream bloody murder about addressing it in practice.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What evidence is there to prove this given that such conspiracies require rather too much mental discipline and focus from people with the attention span of a mosquito?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

As others have already said above, I do not see income inequality as being harmful in and of itself therefore my answer to your first two questions would be "It doesn't". In my opinion income inequality is an invalid metric in that it would seem to assume that a millionaire who lives next-door to a billionaire is getting screwed over in some way. When it comes to adressing poverty I prefer to stick to more concrete metrics like food, shelter, etc...

As for the third question, it would bother me in the sense that an active effort "to gang up the little guy" implies a level of agression which I feel is unwarrented and distastful, but as peristaltor said you can't really get mad at someone for acting in thier own self interest.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"that a millionaire who lives next-door to a billionaire is getting screwed over in some way"

Why would we only consider those people?
You have to, and this is important, think about ALL the people.
Not just a small number of them, cause then you are missing the picture.