> But an important political economic problem in the real world is that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
I’m not sure if this 100% true. The highly visible super rich like Bezos and Gates and, say, the top 50 billionaires may stay rich, but the merely rich like millionaires and low billionaires are more likely to have turnover in their ranks. I recall seeing some data on this but forgot where. Will post if I can find it.
I might be wrong, but IMHO the amount of billionaires don't really constitute a big enough population to say something definitive about that claim. Clearly the list of rich people isn't static. A billionaire might be shoved off the list of billionaires and further down, for instance. Though certainly, the chance of a billionaire becomming poor is most likely lower than a millionaire becomming poor, though I'm sure this can be tested. But without a better definition of "rich", then it really doesn't say much about social mobility or economic equality, if that is what you're going after.
If you assume that the claim "the rich becomes richer" is true—which seems to be the case in this simulation—then the thing to find out is probably, "why?" and "what can be done to make a more fair distribution?" Given that this system is even unfair that is. As I see it, this is clearly up for discussion (i.e. whether what is basically Capitalism is unfair), though the simulation does not take it up explicitly, and instead merely hinting to that with such a system, the rich would necessarily become richer, and the poor poorer.
I mean, who said economic equality is even a goal? Do not those who make life better for others, also deserve a good life themselves? And if you don't make life better for others, you obviously still deserve to live, but do you deserve as much comfort and self-determination (in terms of economic wealth) as those who manage to offer more?
Huge economic inequality breeds resentment and a bad society for everyone to live in. Not to mention the risk of a bloody revolution if the poorest people end up with not enough food.
Huge inequality of consumption breeds resentment, yes. Fortunately, in the US, inequality of consumption is much, much, much smaller than inequality of income or wealth.
One of the most economically unequal societies in the West is the USA. Why does Socialism still fare so badly over there, then? Clearly rich Americans should be taxed more, and Americans in general should give up their freedom in order to enjoy more economic equality. ;)
> I mean, who said economic equality is even a goal? Do not those who make life better for others, also deserve a good life themselves? And if you don't make life better for others, you obviously still deserve to live, but do you deserve as much comfort and self-determination (in terms of economic wealth) as those who manage to offer more?
Not sure why you even went there since I said nothing about it. But imho any discussion of economic inequality that doesn’t take into account the different between inequality due to wealth creation and inequality due to wealth extraction is disingenuous and likely a smokescreen.
Inequality due to differences in ability to create wealth is absolutely fine. That’s capitalism at its best, and is the “make life better for others” you’re talking about. Silicon Valley startup ecosystem is the penultimate example, along with various manufacturing activities and energy production.
Raw materials + innovation + capital + labor + time = useful new physical things worth more than the sum of their inputs = wealth creation. I’m all for people getting filthy rich this way, it ultimately benefits all of society and is how we advance the human race (for the most part, minus our failure at dealing with some externalities like pollution).
But inequality due to wealth extraction is a problem, and becoming an increasingly bad one, in the US at least. Wealth extraction is about market failure. One or few entities corner a market, drive out competitors (or collude) and drive up prices.
Examples are the Telecoms and Internet service in the US blocking last mile alternatives, or an increasingly consolidated and powerful banking sector that can privatize profits and socialize losses, or hospital billing administrators enriching themselves by creating obfuscated pricing schedules based not on what some medical service costs to provide, but on what they can get the insurance companies to pay. Things like that.
It’s extremely important that this conversation about inequality constantly makes this distinction, lauds and exonerates wealth creators while closely scrutinizing and course correcting wealth extraction. Otherwise you get revolts like the Bolshevik Revolution, French Revolution, Occupy Wall Street, etc full of people who are just so angry, fed up, and oblivious to the difference, that they will throw out the baby with the bath water if given the chance. Then we all become worse off.
I’m not sure if this 100% true. The highly visible super rich like Bezos and Gates and, say, the top 50 billionaires may stay rich, but the merely rich like millionaires and low billionaires are more likely to have turnover in their ranks. I recall seeing some data on this but forgot where. Will post if I can find it.