> Doesn't the qoute state that income inequality is supposed to enact accumulation and growth("give something to aspire to") but instead leads to concentration of political power among the wealthy, who then use that power to further secure their higher income, creating a feedback loop?
That's not how I am reading the quote. It states there is a correlation between a high concentration of political power and income inequality. Thus it seems absurd, even if you don't think the former causes the latter, to believe you can solve the latter through political means.
> And to your point about non-coerced transactions, where does coercion start? Monopolies? Excessive costs? Does Comcast coerce their customers, if they have only no internet as the alternative? Does uber coerce people with surge pricing? And that pharma guy, raising the price of the drug, did he coerce people ? I would tend to say yes in the case of the Comcast monopoly, no in the other cases.
> But it's hard to define exactly where coercion starts.
I think you're having difficulty with those scenarios only because you have not first defined "coercion". Google gives me this definition:
> the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
To clarify my use of the word, and hopefully not completely distort the use of the word I would like to amend the definition as follows:
> the practice of persuading someone to do something by using violence or threats of violence.
When clearly defined it is clear in all of the scenarios you raised, none of them involve coercion.
That's not how I am reading the quote. It states there is a correlation between a high concentration of political power and income inequality. Thus it seems absurd, even if you don't think the former causes the latter, to believe you can solve the latter through political means.
> And to your point about non-coerced transactions, where does coercion start? Monopolies? Excessive costs? Does Comcast coerce their customers, if they have only no internet as the alternative? Does uber coerce people with surge pricing? And that pharma guy, raising the price of the drug, did he coerce people ? I would tend to say yes in the case of the Comcast monopoly, no in the other cases.
> But it's hard to define exactly where coercion starts.
I think you're having difficulty with those scenarios only because you have not first defined "coercion". Google gives me this definition:
> the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
To clarify my use of the word, and hopefully not completely distort the use of the word I would like to amend the definition as follows:
> the practice of persuading someone to do something by using violence or threats of violence.
When clearly defined it is clear in all of the scenarios you raised, none of them involve coercion.