
The Mathematics of Inequality - urahara
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/mathematics-inequality
======
Klockan
The main problem with economic theory is that people aren't rational economic
actors.

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.

~~~
slamdance
> _democratically elect representatives who will distribute it for them..._

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.

~~~
jjaredsimpson
When voters elect representatives to move money from the wealthy to themselves
it is theft.

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.

~~~
slamdance
you're not reading it because you're _looking_ to justify your own position
and don't _want_ to see it.

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".

------
aqi
"Two people enter into a series of transactions, and both have the same
probability of winning some amount of wealth from the other, just as in a
free-market transaction."

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.

------
jhanschoo
I think that this is a pretty obvious fact, once you ignore the ideological
explanations. The rich can borrow at a lower interest, the rich can have their
money beget more money in riskier opportunities. Those with no money to their
name can’t afford that.

