Dictatorships fundamentally cannot compete with democracies, as the incentives of the dictator do not align with good outcomes for the population or country
Yet inequality keeps growing in these so-called democracies. There are ups and downs to all systems. China benefits from having the ability to carry out long-term projects. Of course, they are at the whims of Xi Jinping, but if the plans are sound then they will benefit from the commitment. Take climate change, for example, where the US pulled out of the Paris climate agreement just because Trump got elected. Meanwhile China has been at the forefront of battery and solar tech manufacturing. It’s not out of benevolence, just mainly because they don’t have much oil of their own, plus it’s a market they plan on cornering. For another example, look at the crumbling US infrastructure where funding struggles to get passed with all the squabbles between the two dominant parties.
Either way, it’s not as simple as labeling something either a dictatorship or a democracy and claiming something WILL follow. After all, a lot of these so-called democracies are more like plutocracies.
I don’t think you could solve inequality by taking the same amount away from everybody.
Are you implying that a very fair, equal and supportive society that had a slightly lower total GDP would be inherently inferior to one with a higher GDP but realistic inequality?
Okay, but that’s a meaningless hypothetical that is not a consequence of reducing income inequality.
The U.S. had substantially lower income inequality during the 50s and 60s and it drove massive economic growth, the expansion of the middle class, opportunities for education and homeownership without a lifetime of debt, and so on.
The Scandinavian countries have much lower levels of income equality than we have today and their citizens report far higher levels of satisfaction with their lives in addition to having better health care outcomes and other effects of a more egalitarian society.
So you can ask whatever rhetorical question you want, but I’m not sure what the point is when your proposed scenario has nothing to do with reality.
Dictatorships fundamentally cannot compete with democracies, as the incentives of the dictator do not align with good outcomes for the population or country
Yet inequality keeps growing in these so-called democracies. There are ups and downs to all systems. China benefits from having the ability to carry out long-term projects. Of course, they are at the whims of Xi Jinping, but if the plans are sound then they will benefit from the commitment. Take climate change, for example, where the US pulled out of the Paris climate agreement just because Trump got elected. Meanwhile China has been at the forefront of battery and solar tech manufacturing. It’s not out of benevolence, just mainly because they don’t have much oil of their own, plus it’s a market they plan on cornering. For another example, look at the crumbling US infrastructure where funding struggles to get passed with all the squabbles between the two dominant parties.
Either way, it’s not as simple as labeling something either a dictatorship or a democracy and claiming something WILL follow. After all, a lot of these so-called democracies are more like plutocracies.
Inequality is not some inherently bad thing.
At the levels it’s at now? It absolutely is. You’d maybe have a point if everyone’s base needs are being met, but it’s not even close.
If given the choice, would you solve inequality if it made everyone 10k poorer?
I don’t think you could solve inequality by taking the same amount away from everybody.
Are you implying that a very fair, equal and supportive society that had a slightly lower total GDP would be inherently inferior to one with a higher GDP but realistic inequality?
I am asking, if you could make everyone equal but we are all poorer, would you do it?
I would not.
Okay, but that’s a meaningless hypothetical that is not a consequence of reducing income inequality.
The U.S. had substantially lower income inequality during the 50s and 60s and it drove massive economic growth, the expansion of the middle class, opportunities for education and homeownership without a lifetime of debt, and so on.
The Scandinavian countries have much lower levels of income equality than we have today and their citizens report far higher levels of satisfaction with their lives in addition to having better health care outcomes and other effects of a more egalitarian society.
So you can ask whatever rhetorical question you want, but I’m not sure what the point is when your proposed scenario has nothing to do with reality.
I just think it’s interesting some people would rather we all be poorer and worse off