The Price of Inequality
Repost This Article
Evolution is the biological manifestation of development. Which, in action merely refers to a ‘gradual unfolding’ usually towards a state of greater complexity or stability. Evolution as a process of natural selection for the most robust model of response to any environment, has been a fundamental force shaping land use in all societies; It is manifest in the biological world as patterns that endure, as patterns that have demonstrated sustainability and often also of great antiquity.
At a local level these patterns produce a great variety of responses to local conditions. Thus a traditional system of rice production in a given region may share many common characteristics, but as the scale gets small enough to isolate village groups, the varieties and agronomic practices will demonstrate local characteristics. The local system has evolved to respond to the local environment, physical and cultural. This reflects the need to place value on traditional responses in terms of providing models for local development. This approach, be it used for urban or rural development, has many appealing features as it facilitates the achievement of the goals set by the world community at UNCED and subsequent agreements reached through the convention processes.
Thus the sector framework and sectoral linkages will be seen to differ in more traditionally oriented cities while they will exhibit more commonalities in modern cities. Whatever the case, the most fundamental and important sectoral linkage is the urban-rural sector relationship. This involves a crucial relationship between the supply of food, water, oxygen and the buffering capacity for urban effluent.
However, the effect of the current economic development has been a unidirectional push towards increased consumption and the growth of financial transactions. As there is a very low value placed on social, health or biological cost, the result has been a dramatic decline in primary productivity, an increase in the state of dependency, a loss of sustainability and in human health.
Usually, one finds that this destructive model of development is promoted by persons with vested interests in either amassing personal fortunes or getting a nation into debt as a part of their ‘official’ work , as will be clarified later.
Consumptive development or idiot development is marked by the importation of anything as long as the market demands it and by injecting money as loans into the local economy and spending it through massive projects. The construction of roads that the majority of the population can never use, big expensive building projects, usually white elephants whose only purpose is to enrich the ‘developers’ and place a nation in debt.
This type of ‘development’ encourages both urban sprawl and the growth of resource and energy dependent cities. The mad rush at constructing cities worldwide, has led to a call for new visions in urban consumption, waste, and space management. New city designers state that ‘urbanism is not the problem we’re facing- the current design of urban spaces is built to serve the automobile, urban areas, as they exist today, promote the existence of an artificial boundary between the “city” and “nature” that have made it easy for urbanites to ignore their impressive impact on outside communities’. It is in these outside communities that the quality of services critical to a city such as water, food and waste removal, finally reside.
Cities have always grown on the capacity of the natural system to support them. Often, in human history these capacities have been exceeded and the loss of that city follows. The examples from the Middle East, Central China and Middle America bear testimony to that fact.
The thing that removed natural restraints to modern urban growth and enabled the cities of today was technology driven by energy. Those who had access to renewable sources such as hydro or geothermal were better equipped , those who did not, turned to oil. However, eventually, the drive for consumption led growth created growth models for cities that took little cognizance of its reliance on the natural world for its existence.
Planning for urban growth without considering the limits of the environment to supply the basic needs of its inhabitants is indeed shortsighted and irresponsible by the future inhabitants, both urban and rural. This ‘misdirected growth’ is often promoted to enrich the people with power or capital and creates a class of ‘super rich’ which rapidly widens the inequality gap between rich and poor. This widening of the gap should be a reason for national concern. The reason why we should all be vigilant to the phenomenon of a widening inequality gap between the rich and the poor is very lucidly explained in a very informative and eye opening book ‘The Spirit Level’ (www.amazon.com/The-Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies) by two Epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. A review in the Guardian states:
The authors point out that ‘the life-diminishing results of valuing growth above equality in rich societies can be seen all around. Inequality causes shorter, unhealthier and unhappier lives; it increases the rate of teenage pregnancy, violence, obesity, imprisonment and addiction; it destroys relationships between individuals born in the same society but into different classes; and its function as a driver of consumption depletes the planet’s resources. With the result that everyone suffers – even the most well off.’ Inequality in their view isn’t just bad for the poor; it’s also bad for the rich.
Analyzing data primarily from 21 developed countries and also the different American states, they present evidence of a correlation between the level of inequality in each country (or state) and a range of outcomes: levels of trust, mental illness, life expectancy, infant mortality, obesity, children’s educational performance, number of teenage births, murders, imprisonment rates and social mobility. More inequality goes with lower trust, more mental illness, higher murder rates and so on. It has nothing to do with total wealth or even the average per-capita income. On almost every index of quality of life, or wellness, or deprivation, there is a gradient showing a strong correlation between a country’s level of economic inequality and its social outcomes.
What has all this to do with where Sri Lanka is heading?
We have gone back to the old ‘formula of ‘borrow as much money as you want for very large projects, the commissions are very attractive and the feasibility of the project is not very important’. It began with the Mahaveli and the current path of progress and development that we are moving towards today seems to be exactly what the big lenders always wanted. John Perkins (www.johnperkins.org) in his book ‘Confessions of an Economic Hit Man’ states that His job was “to convince countries that are strategically important to the United States to accept enormous loans for infrastructure development and to make sure that the lucrative projects were contracted to U.S. corporations”. He further states that economic hit men as “highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources.
Knowing the degree of education and experience with mega projects that is required to launch such projects and when we compare it with what the current regime has, it is obvious that there is no one with any smarts to develop even anything close to a credible project from within the regime, then where do these grandiose ideas and schemes come from ? who prepares the studies and financial projections to the satisfaction of the international lenders
Are there a bunch of shadowy ‘hit men’ of various colours in this town, abetted by a bunch of the greedy locals, leading us like a bunch of ignoramuses to a debt ridden future marked by social inequity and financial slavery?
This is the process gives rise to ‘Crony Capitalism’. Using Italy as an example Dr. Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago points out that ”Even emergency room doctors gain promotions on the basis of political affiliations. Instead of being told to study, young people are urged to ‘carry the bag’ for powerful people in the hope of winning favours. Mothers push their daughters into the arms of the rich and powerful seeing it as the only avenue of social promotion. The nations talent-selection process is broken : one routinely finds highly intelligent people employed in menial jobs while mediocre people hold distinguished positions
The worst consequence of crony capitalism is political. The more a system is dominated by cronies, the more it generates resentment. To maintain consensus, the insiders must distribute privileges and subsidies – and the more they dole out, the greater the demand becomes “
In order to ‘dole it out’, massive projects are mooted so that the politicians and their cronies take out their commissions and move their lesser cronies into management , ensuring that the project can never be a success.
These types of massive infrastructure based development projects, that brings in no return and no possibilities of payback, is a prime factor creating the woes due to economic inequality that Wilkinson and Pickett described. In Sri Lanka today the widening inequality gap between the rich and the poor is obvious to any observer. This type of crony capitalism, may create a fortunate future for a few, but it will produce a dismal future for the rest of us and our children.
Ranil
Thank you for writing a series of ‘eye-openers’ for us.
We need to hear a lot from academic social scientists.
That should help an increase in the quality and quantity of civil societies spread out all over the country.
At the moment this government is going in the opposite direction and the silence from social scientists is deafening.
Decades ago some scientists said that only altruism can save mankind.
“The construction of roads that the majority of the population can never use”
This view is most unfortunate. There is absolutely no reason why it should take 5 hours to travel 160km from Colombo to Matara in this day and age. A robust, efficient road and rail network linking all major cities is a must for a country to develop. Given its size, it should not take more than a couple of hours to travel from Colombo to North, East or South of the Island. An expressway to N and E will do far more to build up inter-ethnic relations than any political solution.
Dear Navin,
The word is priorities. I too enjoy the fast ride but there are many other priorities that we face. Further, if efficient transport of people and goods are needed trains are fast transport systems that are more energy efficient and much more equitable, but they do not afford easy kickbacks.
Regards
Ranil, kadphises:
Looking at arguments against expressways, I feel they only have academic merit. Highways and railways are complimentary. Hence railways are necessary but by no means sufficient. In practice, these infrastructure projects will pay off many fold. Similar arguments stalled power generation schemes in the past. The resulting consequences are now well known.
I’m sure there are people getting kickbacks out of these projects as with any other. Yet, that’s a separate issue from whether the projects themselves are beneficial to the country.
Navin,
It is great to have good roads and airports all over the country. But we must also recognise the opportunity cost of it all. The balooning debt and also the biological cost. Building a network of dual carriage highways like the Colombo-Matara Highway has the effect of partitioning the country in to biological segments. The fences along the highways and railways prevent cross fertilisation and migration of local wildlife isolated on either side of these highways. And this is in addition to threat due to roadkill pose a big threat to our wildlife.
Would it not be much better to improve our busses and trains and impose restrictions on the use of private vehicles on inter-city highways? This would reduce the traffic drastically and make it still possible to reach Galle in 90 minutes. If taxis and hire cars should then be available at the bus termini travellers/commuters can proceed to their destinations without too much further inconvenience. As the world runs out of fossil fuels and as fuel prices increase we may not have a choice over this in 40 years anyway. So why not prepare ourselves now and make the necessary adjustments?
Navin
We’re talking about INEQUALITY here.
What is the proportion of space in this small island that is taken up by fast roads?
What is the proportion of people who are using these?
What is the impact on social, economic and biological ”ecology” ?
While some people are forcibly displaced from their livelihood areas and some IDPs are dumped in cleared jungles, their land is sold to tourism businessmen. ….
There are thousand problems we hear daily.
It envelops moral ecology too !!
Inequality has been institutionalised in all possible ways in this country from the time of independence till today:
Submission before Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Committee (LLRC) by Chandra Jayaratne, 23 September 2010: ‘’…… Years of inequitable allocation of national resources and consequential disparities in regional economic development, infrastructure development and public service delivery have sown the seeds of discontent and disillusionment leading to conflict, insurrections of the South and the North and even the armed struggle towards a separate administration…..”
In the North the part (=appointment of Governor) of the thirteenth Amendment controlling the people by the central government is implemented and the part (=elections to Provincial Council) controlled by the people is not yet held though the people have been voting in Presidential and General Elections.
It might be a noble thing to advocate equality. But I just don’t get why you think we need to be inspired by evolution.
Say that you were able to prove that evolution trending toward greater complexity is not a statistical illusion, and that it somehow also means an increase in quality. Still, evolution is purposeless, wasteful and definitely not progressive. Even an increase in quality is only with respect to an environment.
Secondly, the theory of evolution makes sense only when there is something digital called DNA. It is about the heritability of DNA, which can transmit itself with 10^-8 errors per base per generation. Using biological evolution to talk about traditional systems of rice production is nonsense. Traditional systems of rice production may even show some aspects of evolution. But using biological evolution to justify a certain view, when that view contains no heritable patterns that can transmit themselves with 10^-8 errors per base per generation, is just misleading.
*****
By the way, in what sense does evolution work? From whose perspective? Certainly not from the perspective of the weak. Isn’t it about the survival of the fittest after all?
Dear Sharanga
Evolution does not mean survival of the strongest. It implies survival of the fittest. In a world that is constantly changing and with climate change the process is getting faster, what was fit for the old environment may not be fit for the new (changed) one. Here the so -called ‘weak’ might be the fittest for the new environment. Further if you look at traditional rice ecosystems in Sri Lanka the co-evolution of the ecosystem (ecosystems evolve too you know, not just DNA) the evidence is obvious (see reference below ) . It is in this sense that evolution works.
Senanayake, R. 1983 The Ecological, Energetic, and Agronomic Systems of Ancient and Modern Sri Lanka. Lanka Guardian 5(7-8), also in Gordon K. Douglass (ed.) Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order pp 227-307. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press,1984 also in Lok Niti, Journal of the Asian NGOs 1(1):11-14.
Dear Ranil,
I’m sorry, but when you say evolution, don’t you mean natural selection, because natural selection is only about genes. It is the genes that evolve. It is the genes that compete. It is the genes that survive. It is the genes that dies; not individuals, not species, and definitely not ecosystems.
Natural selection is about genes competing against each other for higher frequency in the gene pool. It is about a gene rising 0.0001% in the gene pool to 99% of the gene pool. It is a zero-sum game that involves only genes and alleles. This is why it is perfectly plausible that a species might evolve to extinction.
When you say ecosystems evolve too, not just DNA, what exactly do you mean? Do ecosystems compete with each other for higher frequency in some ecosystem pool? Do they have replicating entities? If so, what are those, and how do they replicate? Are they high-fidelity entities such as DNA? Is there a cumulative selection pressure?
If you’re claim that ecosystems evolve, not just DNA, adhering to the laws of natural selection, please make a compelling argument for it instead of referring to a number of books that none of your readers are ever going to read. If you present an argument as to how ecosystems evolve adhering to the same laws that govern the evolution of DNA, others can argue against it, which would expand everyone’s knowledge.
Something I’ve noticed is that when people talk about evolution of technologies, evolution of corporations etc. they define the word “evolution“ in such a way so that it explains everything from elephants’ teeth to the existence of income tax. This path is closed to you. You have already referred to biological evolution (natural selection). I bet you’re going to have a hard time trying to explain how the evolution of things that have virtually nothing to do with DNA are governed by laws that govern the evolution of DNA.
********
I don’t think I have used the word “strongest” anywhere in my comment. But it is just a word, so I might as well use it. When I say survival of the fittest, I’m talking about the survival genes and alleles, and the word “fittest” refers to their relative ability to replicate and increase their frequency in the gene pool.
There’s always a weak gene that it is unable to adapt to a particular change in the environment. I did not mean that there are permanently weak genes. The point is, evolution is hardly fair, and it wastes a lot of DNA. You’d never be able to achieve equality through a process similar to biological evolution. Biological evolution needs inequalities to operate. DNAs can transmit themselves to future generations with an astounding level of accuracy. But there is always room for slight errors (mutations).
If evolution was a government, and the genes were people, then it is the kind of government that says, “We’re going to increase income tax by 75% for everyone. Those who cannot pay it and not go bankrupt, we’re going to kill you with high-tech machine guns.”
Dear Sharanga,
I think you have got hung up on your genes . Are you talking about mutation, migration or drift of genes ? To help you understand better I have copied two definitions from the web. It is the external forces (environment) that determines the fitness of that individual for that environment.
“Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
“Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift. if you have variation, differential reproduc”tion, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
For Ecosystem evolution see :
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/410.html
or see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ecology
“Evolutionary ecology lies at the intersection of ecology and evolutionary biology. It approaches the study of ecology in a way that explicitly considers the evolutionary histories of species and the interactions between them. Conversely, it can be seen as an approach to the study of evolution that incorporates an understanding of the interactions between the species under consideration. The main subfields of evolutionary ecology are life history evolution, sociobiology (the evolution of behavior), the evolution of interspecific relations (cooperation, predator-prey interactions, parasitism, mutualism) and the evolution of biodiversity and of communities.”
No one needs to look up books these days any reader of a blog can click onto a web address and check for themselves. If the evolution of ecosystems is an accepted fact or not.
To use your quote :
“When I say survival of the fittest, I’m talking about the survival genes and alleles, and the word “fittest” refers to their relative ability to replicate and increase their frequency in the gene pool.”
What are they fittest for survival in ? In the environment or in the gene pool ?
It would be better if we moved from the 1950’s understandng of the word evolution and came to grips with the modern usage of the term
AND
As there is natural inequality in genes as fitter and not so fit, are you attempting to defend the inequality in society that I have pointed out in my article ?
Your understanding of evolution is a confusion borne from an ineptness to simultaneously consider multiple abstract concepts and keep them distinct. Let me explain.
“…external forces (environment) that determines the fitness of that individual for that environment.”
This is not confusion. This is a misunderstanding. I’m not referring to the external forces. You seem to have thought that I deny the effect of external forces (What are they fittest for survival in? In the environment or in the gene pool?). I did not. Didn’t I say “There’s always a weak gene that is unable to adapt to a particular change in the environment.”? But that is a separate issue. What I think is a misunderstanding is the word “individual” in your comment.
Evolution is not about survival of individual. It is about the survival of genes.
What does it mean for a set of things to evolve? It means that they are subjected to a selection process over time. This selection process is natural selection. Now, what is an individual? It is a once-off collection of genes that would never reappear. You can’t select on that. The individuals vanish when they die. It’s only the genes that survive. They are the lasting information. Take your own reference. “…process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers.” This is about genes. This is about genes competing against each other for higher frequency in the gene pool. It is on them that you select. It is genes that struggle to survive. Not you or me as individuals. We’re not pitted against each other for survival. We’re only pitted against each other to reproduce, and that is only because we carry genes that want to be replicated, and survive.
“Are you talking about mutation, migration or drift of genes?”
I wasn’t talking about any one of them in particular. But if you look at them, you’d see that all of them work in the gene/DNA/allele level. They don’t work on any higher level such as individuals or species, and definitely not ecosystems.
Yes, people do talk about evolution of species (like evolution of humans). But is it the species that actually evolve? No. Evolution only works on the level of DNAs. Yes, since individuals are made from DNA, evolution has an effect on individuals, and by extension species, and by further extension ecosystems, and by even further extension the entire ecosphere. Yet, evolution itself doesn’t work at that level. Individuals do not compete against each other to replicate and increase their frequency in the in individual pool. Individuals do not rise from 0.0001% of the individual pool to 99% of the individual pool. It’s only the genes that do. Evolution happens only at that level. You can’t explain evolution at any higher level. At higher levels, you can explain only the effects of biological evolution.
I commend you on providing links instead of books that no one would read, except that none of those links explain how ecosystems evolve using the same laws that govern the evolution of DNA. In the article titled “Ecosystem Evolution”, it is not as if ice-ness and ice-less-ness ever competed against each other for higher frequency in an ecosystem pool. It is not as if ice-ness had any unit that can be transmitted to future ice generations. The word “evolution” in this article is used in the same general way people use it when they talk about evolution of technologies.
Let’s take the next link.
“Evolutionary ecology lies at the intersection of ecology and evolutionary biology. It approaches the study of ecology in a way that explicitly considers the evolutionary histories of species and the interactions between them.”
Replace the word “ecology” with the word “psychology”, and you get,
“Evolutionary psychology lies at the intersection of psychology and evolutionary biology. It approaches the study of psychology in a way that explicitly considers the evolutionary histories of species and the interactions between them.”
It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? In fact, there actually is a field of study called “Evolutionary Psychology”, which I’m kind of learning these days. Does this also mean that psychology also evolved using the same laws that govern the evolution of DNA? No.
If you read your own quote again, you’d see the word “intersection” there. It is not as if ecology itself is evolving. Rather, ecology changes as it is affected by evolutionary biology (among other things, such as geological changes).
******
“As there is natural inequality in genes as fitter and not so fit, are you attempting to defend the inequality in society that I have pointed out in my article?”
You wouldn’t have asked this if you read my comment where I said “It might be a noble thing to advocate equality. But I just don’t get why you think we need to be inspired by evolution.”
My problem was two-fold,
1. You saying ecosystems evolve using the same laws of biological evolution (as opposed to a generalized version of evolution, such as when one says technology evolves.)
2. Using the effectiveness biological evolution to justify a worldview that endorse equality, when biological evolution is in fact a mechanism that promotes inequality, and also incredibly wasteful, and non-progressive.
I would like to add a comment on my view of economic inequality as well. For most people, opposing inequality and promoting equality is an idealistic thing. They are seduced by the scale and beauty of the idea, not the mundane fact that any meaningful economic equality can only be achieved through income and wealth redistribution.
As for me, no, I don’t my wealth to be taken by the government (perhaps in the form of taxes) and given to the poor. Why? For the same reason I don’t want to share my Grade Point Average (GPA) with anyone else. It’s mine.
‘As for me, no, I don’t my wealth to be taken by the government (perhaps in the form of taxes) and given to the poor. Why? For the same reason I don’t want to share my Grade Point Average (GPA) with anyone else. It’s mine.’
As for me I have already given of my wealth to the government who redistributed it, ostensibly for the poor (the people) like thousands of other Sri Lankans gave up their wealth to the government. Watching the process I did not think it was fair, but I understood the ethos behind, the faction. That has not stopped me from giving (sharing) of whenever wealth I have, whenever I can. I like to give ‘dana’; I like to help others, that is my reality. There are millions who feel like me
You on the other hand represent the millions of others who are primarily selfish, think only and will only do things to better oneself . As you say, what you have ‘is mine’.
This is a fundamental difference between us when addressing the theme before us, that theme being ‘Inequality’. You saw an opportunity to aggrandize on a subject that you thought you knew a lot about, to demonstrate your superior ‘knowledge’ on the concept of ‘evolution’ . My intent in demonstrating the effect of ‘inequality’ was to try to avoid the pain and suffering it brings, through making others realize so that it might become socially repugnant.
In your view you could care less about what happens to others, your intent was to show that you could define the word evolution ‘better.’
The reality is that the world is one and operates only one way. We all look at this process individually and create verbiage to describe it. It is also a fact that the whole world evolves, be it from your narrow mutating genes perspective or a wide geologic perspective, they are different only in that they are just scales of the same process. This discussion is a philosophical process, with a myriad human perspectives that you are welcome to try and unify.
However, It is those millions who act with a ‘I do not like to share’ attitude that has got us to this precarious situation in the first place. If through a realization that they are all part of a same, evolving process, they are able to cultivate some compassion for others , we may even save the planet!
Dear Ranil,
If you’re accusing me of being a show-off, you are absolutely right. I’m not a big fan of false modesty. I’m not Gandalf. Now that we agree that laws that govern DNAs do not work at any other higher level, we can move on.
About selfishness.
Perhaps I should’ve been more careful when I said “it’s mine”. I should’ve seen it would be interpreted this way. I should’ve highlighted the word “government” there, so that you see what exactly that I object to. I don’t anyone to take my money from me and give it to the poor for the same reason I don’t want the university to take my GPA and redistribute it among less gifted students. Otherwise, I’m no less charitable than the average person when it comes to giving my money away.
Am I selfish? Yes. But not anymore than a normal human being. A normal human being has low motives for doing anything in the sense that they are directed at themselves. When people donate, they do it for the warm feeling they feel afterwards. You wouldn’t donate if you felt bad afterwards.
But the fact that donating may not be truly altruistic doesn’t diminish it’s value. So I commend you for donating your wealth and tell others as well as myself to do the same. But wealth redistribution through government policies, no.
“If through a realization that they are all part of a same, evolving process, they are able to cultivate some compassion for others , we may even save the planet!”
Please don’t make these kinds of statements. You’re not only confusing yourself, but you’re also misleading others into thinking that this kind of evolution is similar to biological evolution. These people then will go on and believe that someday we’re going to evolve into a superintelligent, god-like beings. Biological evolution doesn’t work like that.
On the 3 types of Persons similar to Sick People:
The Blessed Buddha once noted:
There are these three kinds of bodily sick people:
One, who will recover by himself, even without any doctor or any medicine..
One, who will never recover, even if treated by the best doctor & best medicine..
One, who will only recover if treated by right medicine and a good doctors advice..
It is for the sake of this last person, that doctors work and medicine is made!
It is similar with those mentally infected by illness of greed, hate and ignorance!
There are these three kinds of mentally sick people:
One will cure and free himself, even without meeting this Buddha-Dhamma…
One will never be cured, even if taught this Dhamma by the Buddha himself…
One will be cured & freed, if & only if, being thoroughly taught this Buddha-Dhamma…
It is for the sake of this last type of person, that this Dhamma should be shared!
I guess there is no point in sharing anything further with you
Goodbye !
Indeed, if you think Buddhism is compatible with evolution, there is no point in sharing anything with you either.
So I have destroyed all your arguments. But why so much hate?
Dear sharanga;
Though I have no a deep knowledge about biological evolution, I feel your arguments about it in a deeper level is logical and consistent.
However, I feel I cannot agree with you in the same way with the argument brought forward to justify your view of economic inequality. I also do not believe 100% economic equality can be achieved or should be achieved, at individual level. However, I feel I cannot agree with the total rejection of economic equality, due to so much of evidence available to justify it in contrast to your argument. I think your argument even is not accurate to negate economic equality. You say,
“As for me, no, I don’t my wealth to be taken by the government (perhaps in the form of taxes) and given to the poor. Why? For the same reason I don’t want to share my Grade Point Average (GPA) with anyone else. It’s mine.”
It is true that your GPA has a one to one connection (if and only if connection)to you (provided it is calculated on an objective basis), hence your argument that sharing it with anyone else is not justifiable, you have proved your point beyond any doubt I suppose.
Same way do you have arguments to prove that your wealth has a one to one connection with you and it was achieved in an objective basis, the way you achieved your Grade Point Average?
Thanks!
Dear yapa,
I’m glad to learn that you think my arguments about evolution is right. I’m frustrated when people portray evolution in a way that is completely different from what it really is. My second grade teacher thought that in the future, humans would have large heads and small bodies. Evolution is brilliant, but it doesn’t work like that.
****
I don’t justify economic inequality. The world would be a better place if this inequality was not present. I just think that redistributing income and wealth to solve it is unjustifiable.
****
As to your last point, I have to be honest. I can’t come up with a brilliant reply right away. So I have to ask you the following question.
In order for a person to be deserving the financial success in their careers, is it absolutely necessary to have a one to one connection with that success? Is a person any less deserving of his success in finance if there is no one to one connection? If so, why?
Dear Yapa,
After five minutes of thinking, I think I have the answer I was looking for.
The answer, there is no one to one connection to begin with.
Your GPA is dependent upon a lot of things over which you have absolutely on control. You didn’t choose your parents. So you didn’t choose the genes in your DNA. If a person is brilliant, that is because he has the genes that gives him an efficient brain. Then there are other things like family background and culture etc. The point is, there are many things over which you have absolutely no control, but have huge impact on your GPA. This is especially true of your DNA.
Still, you think that a person deserves his GPA. It his reward for all his hard work, and most people don’t like it if the university decided to redistribute it. But again, hard work is not the only thing that had an effect on the GPA. Yet, people think a person deserves his GPA.
Success in finance may not be entirely dependent on a person’s hard work. Maybe, the fact that the person has a brilliant brain has something to do with his financial success. Maybe the fact that he was born into a wealthy family has something to do with it. But as long as you think a person deserves his GPA, you cannot say a person does not deserve his financial success without being called a hypocrite.
(Please note that a person’s ability to work hard is also dependent on lot of other things. What if the person has a genetic disease that makes him lazy?)
To avoid a logical inconsistency, you have to either hold that no one deserves their success in anything, or everyone deserves their success in anything.
Dear Sharanga;
Thanks for the reply.
As I said I feel your position about evolution is correct, though I am not very sure about it, because my knowledge about evolution is minimal. However, I know very well that many people take very specific principles (especially principles in science)in general sense to justify their opinions or what ever they like to believe. Newton’s third law is a more popularly used such principle. Though the principle is very specific about forces (forces as defined in Science, not in any other meaning), but many (even social scientists) misquote it as to work in “social forces” which is not even thought by Newton in his distance dreams. “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction” is only true for “forces in science”, at least that is what Newton meant when he declared them. Just as Laws in Physics (science) should be handled only by the people who have a fair knowledge about them, I think evolution too is not to be handled by everybody, but by the people who are “qualified and capable” for it. One of the greatest fallacies people believe is that anybody can do anything, except in the case of doctors’ job. In that case people vary from the general belief and willing to hand over that specific job to doctors alone. They do not like to treat their own ailments in most of the cases, they never do their heart surgeries by themselves at least. Generalizing specifics without much heed is a very common malady.
You say you don’t justify economic inequality. But what you had said in the previous post, addressed to Ranil indicates otherwise, that is how at least I felt about your stance. What you said in there was just as your GPA which is yours (a unique attribute of yours) you do not like to share, you don’t like to share your wealth with anybody else.
Here your presumption was GPA is not sharable because it is solely belong to you and not to anybody else. It clearly implies your view was that your GPA belong to nothing but to you, indicating it is a one to one connection to you (if and only if connection). This was your stance, however, I qualified it is to indicate it is only a one to one connection only if GPA is calculated on an objective basis, I think that was my position, not yours.
What you tried to establish in your argument was to equate the position of your wealth to your position of your GPA, to indicate that wealth is also not distributable because, it is also nothing but yours, as it also has a one to one connection or as a sole attribute of your identity/personality.
Now with the dilution of your position about GPA in the posts addressed to me , I think your position about economic equality further deteriorates, not strengthen as you seem to think.
If I rephrase What I said above, in contrast to your position, my position was GPA (as calculated today) is not a total attribute of an individual and hence it is not(totally) a measurement of an individual, even more than that wealth of an individual is not a representation of a competencies/attributes of an individual and hence, the idea that a wealth of an individual is not distributable is a wrong conclusion/fallacy.
If an individual cannot totally justify the his wealth in terms of his/her own attributes or competencies, it means that others too can have a claim to that wealth.
Now you accept that your GPA and also the wealth of an individual do not always represent his/her individual share of competencies and attributes. Doesn’t this alteration of your position (your new position indicated in the posts addressed to me) contradict with your original position or negate it?
Do you still think you can hold the ground with your earlier position that you should not share your wealth with others? Do you still think we all have a legitimate claim for our all wealth (not to have any claim by anybody else) not at all to share it with others?
Thanks!
Dear Sharanga;
To summarize my post, can you justifiably/safely say,
1. Your GPA is totally yours?
2. Your wealth is totally yours?
(or have you a total legitimate claim for them?)
Thanks!
Dear yapa,
1. Yes
2. Yes
There is no one to one connection in the sense that both your GPA and wealth depend on many things. But a one to one connection is not necessary to own, or deserve your GPA and wealth.
It boils down to the following two question, and when answering, keep in mind neither GPA nor wealth has a one to one connection to the person who claims ownership.
Q1: Do you think it is justifiable for a university to redistribute higher GPAs?
Q2: If so, why?
Q3: If not, how do you justify wealth redistribution, when both GPA and wealth are similar in that they have no one to one connection to the person who claims ownership?
P.S. I don’t know how you get the impression that I justify economic inequality. Is saying that it is how the world is, also justify it? Because that is exactly my position. Economic inequality is bad, but that is how the world is, and I wouldn’t go out of my way to correct it.
Reading your comment again, I think I have to make the following concession. Yes, intially I argued as though there was a one to one connection between GPA and the person, as well as wealth and the person. You have successfully shown me that this is not the case.
However, I still hold my position for the sake of logical coherence, and would continue to hold it unless your answer to the above three questions change it.
Dear sharanga;
Let me salute you first of all for your flexibility and intellectual honesty.
My response will follow.
Thanks!
Dear sharanga;
“However, I still hold my position for the sake of logical coherence, and would continue to hold it unless your answer to the above three questions change it.”
I think your position is not logically coherent. I will explain.
You have accepted that GPA and wealth of an individual have no one to one connection with his/her competencies/attributes. That means an individual cannot claim sole ownership for them. That means the GPA and wealth of an individual contain some portions that has no claim by the particular individual, hence has a right to be claimed by others, establishing a logical ownership by others.(I think you accepted this fact.) So, it is logical and justifiable to give the right owners their due shares. That means sharing ones wealth (and also the GPA to a some extent) is logically justifiable.
Now to answer your questions,
“Q1: Do you think it is justifiable for a university to redistribute higher GPAs?”
I don’t think it is possible to find a method to redistribute GPA according to the personal attributes of a person after computing it with other external attributes such as person’s wealth. What one should try to do is to devise a more objective formula to to compute GPA to represent his IQ and his personal effort.
I think this is not impossible. In standardization of A/L marks the outside factors such as lack of educational resources and provincial disparities were avoided. This can be considered as a redistribution of “GPA”, without which no Einstein born in Monaragala would have at least become an Arts graduate.
This is a kind of practical evidence to show how justifiably the redistribution of “GPA” is done.
“Q2: If so, why?”
Unavailability of a methodology is not a reason to justify an injustice.
“Q3: If not, how do you justify wealth redistribution, when both GPA and wealth are similar in that they have no one to one connection to the person who claims ownership?”
As I shown wealth and GPA not similar in their connection to the individual though they do not have one to one connection to the individual. Degrees are different. Looking at the society you can see the vast difference in their connection to individual competencies. GPA has more closer relationship and wealth do not show that proportionate. In many capitalist countries, richest 10% population owns about 40-50% wealth of a nation while the poorest 10% may not even hols 1%. There is no such an inequality in GPA. A person entitled on the basis of his own competencies for 4.5, might get 6.5 with the help of external factors but not 9.5. Even with those factors a wealthy mutt would not get 6.5, but a mutt in a wealthy family may included in the richest band irrespective of his competencies. Wealth distribution is so much unequal and grave compared to GPA.
On the other hand Einsteins born in African continent may never see a GPA of theirs or will die without a morsel of food to eat while mutts in rich families spend millions of dollars in casinos in various pars of the world.
Do you think this is justifiable. No, no one would say it is justifiable. The problem is the unavailability of a proper method of equitable redistribution. Karl Marx tried one. It is almost non existent in practice now.Capitalism believes in “Trickle down Theory”, which does not sow a much success. However, I should repeat Unavailability of a methodology is not a reason to justify an injustice.
“P.S. I don’t know how you get the impression that I justify economic inequality. Is saying that it is how the world is, also justify it? Because that is exactly my position. Economic inequality is bad, but that is how the world is, and I wouldn’t go out of my way to correct it.”
I do not say you justify economic inequality. But your notion against economic equality indicates so.
Otherwise why did you oppose so much the core idea put forward by Ranil Senanayake against the economic inequality, finding a trivial mistake in his arguments. Why were you so critical on his crux of the article, which is justifiable in many other ways?
Thanks!
Yapa,
I think you’re not grasping my argument properly. But first things first.
That means an individual cannot claim sole ownership for them. That means the GPA and wealth of an individual contain some portions that has no claim by the particular individual, hence has a right to be claimed by others, establishing a logical ownership by others.(I think you accepted this fact.)
What you are saying,
A) person-A does not have a one to one connection to his wealth/GPA
B) therefore, person-A’s GPA/wealth has a portion that cannot be claimed by him
C) therefore person-B has the right to claim that portion of person-A’s GPA/wealth
Q: Now can you tell me how does C logically follows from A and B?
Person-A cannot claim a portion of his GPA/wealth because he has no one to one connection to it. Yet somehow, according to your weird logic, person-B can claim it even though he has no connection to it whatsoever, let alone a one to one connection.
There’s finer point that you’re not grasping. But first you need to answer this.
Dear sharanga;
“Q: Now can you tell me how does C logically follows from A and B?”
Very obvious and easy dear sharanga.
Do you believe that there is no any wealth left in this world without an owner? (I am asking this question keeping all the other creatures in this world aside.)
Now A ans B talks about a portion of wealth that cannot be claimed by an individual. So on the basis of the assumption I mentioned above, it should belong to somebody else. (or in general to the others)
It is simple as that. I don’t understand why you don’t grasp it?
(A problem in GPA?, Ha! Ha!!)
Thanks!
Yapa,
Now A ans B talks about a portion of wealth that cannot be claimed by an individual.
The individual cannot claim it because he does not have an one to one connection to it.
Others are individuals too. If you are not allowing one person to claim a certain amount of wealth because he does not have a one to one connection it, and allow other individuals to claim it even though they do not have a one to one connection to it either, you have to make a further assumption. Now I can spell it out. But I’d rather get it from you yourself because I need it for the rest of the argument.
Person-A does not have a one to one connection to wealth-K.
Person-B does not have a one to one connection to wealth-K.
Person-C does not have a one to one connection to wealth-K.
Person-A cannot claim wealth-K on the basis that he does not have a one to one connection to wealth-K.
Person-B, and Person-C can claim wealth-K without a one to one connection to it.
Why couldn’t person-A claim wealth-K just like Person-B and Person-C. What prohibits him from doing it?
My dear friend sharanga;
It seems that you want me to spoon feed you, which is something I detest. But for the time being I will do it.
Dear sharanga, the individuals A,B,C I am talking are not equals in their wealth. No fool will ask to pool the wealth of equals. My argument is it is justifiable to distribute undue wealth of the over privileged among under privileged.
That is how inequality can be corrected, not by pooling wealth of equals, Ha! Ha!!
Got the point? No? You want me to spoon feed, ok!
Consider the following case.
Person-A does not have a one to one connection to wealth, but has more wealth than his due. (compared to his competencies)
Person-B does not have a one to one connection to wealth, but has less wealth than his due.
Person-C does not have a one to one connection to wealth, but has less wealth than his due.
Now did you get the answer to your question: “Why couldn’t person-A claim wealth-K just like Person-B and Person-C. What prohibits him from doing it?”
I say person B and C also can claim wealth just as A. Why do you think B and C cannot do what A can do?
(Do you think prohibition is from whose side?)
Thanks!
Yapa,
You seem hurt. That’s when people go around mocking the opponent. Don’t get things personal.
Now, after your last comment, you should realize that there’s an additional assumption in deciding whether a person deserves to keep all his wealth or not. This assumption is arbitrary. In your case the assumption is “only the people with under the average wealth per person deserve to keep a portion of wealth to which he has no one to one connection.”
In deciding whether to take a portion of a person’s wealth, in othet words, in deciding whether a person does not deserve a portion if his wealth, you consider two things,
1. Does he not have a one to one connection.
2. Is he above the average wealth line.
Do you see the point I’m trying to make? Let me spell it out in bold font.
The absence of a one to one connection alone is not enough to determine that a person does not deserve a portion of his wealth. A person can deserve a certain amount of wealth even if he does not have a one to one connection to it
The above two sentences in bold are important, not to refute your argument, but rather to support mine.
Now to the refutation of your argument.
Consider the following statement you made,
There is no such an inequality in GPA. A person entitled on the basis of his own competencies for 4.5, might get 6.5 with the help of external factors but not 9.5.
I don’t know from where you got this GPA scale, but that is tangential. The important phrase here that I want to consider is the phrase “external factors” .
What constitutes an external factor? Is it the fact they are outside the body that makes them external? If that’s the case, a computer chip transplanted inside the brain is an internal factor.
The only meaningful classification of internal and external factors is as follows.
Internal factors – factors over which you have control
External factors – factors over which you have no control, or ver limited control
Now,
1. Under what category would you put a person’s IQ?
2. Under what category would you put a person’s health?
3. Under what category would you put a person’s genetic disposition to work hard?
4. Under what category would you put a person’s parents?
5. Under what category would you put the environment in which he grows up?
These are the five most important factors that I think have an impact on GPA. Among them the person has absolutely no control over factors 1, 4 and 5. If we live in a deterministic universe, we would have absolutely no control over factors 2 and 3 as well. If we do live in a non-deterministic universe, you woul still have only a limted control over factors 2 and 3.
So you see, Yapa, even though you seem to think that internal factors had a lot to do with you calculating 2+2=4, and writing it down, it actually had more to do with external factors over which you had no control.
One to one connection is actually not something that actually exists. Consider the act of you writing 4 as the answer to 2+2. Forget about minor factors that has some effect on this, such as ink flowing out of you pen, due to gravity, to write the number 4 on paper.
The direct major cause for the act of writing 4, was you thought that 2+2 was 4. Do you think the thought is the ultimate source? It is not. Everything is caused. Your thought wouldn’t have occurred to you if you lacked the part of the brain that performs calculations. You have that brain part only because you have the necessary genes. You have those genes because your parents met and made you. Likewise, this causal history can be traced back to 15 billion years when the universe began. You’ve never had any control over any of those.
So GPA and wealth are not as different as you think. Both are largely determined by factors over which you had absolutely no control.
*****
I must at this point also ask you something else.
If indeed you deserve your GPA because you have a one to one connection to it, then it must also mean that a mentally retarded person also deserves his lack of a GPA. You might even justify it with karma.
But if karma actually exists, then karma has a lot to do with you wealth. Certain good karma earns you wealth, and you deserve your wealth. As a Buddhist, how do you justify the government taking the rewards of your good karma away? Or is it that some of your bad karma has given rise to a government policy change that affects everyone so that after all, you deserve to lose your money?
Yapa,
At least, not you must see where I’m getting at.
In determining whether a person deserves to keep a certain portion of his wealth, it is not enough to just check whether there’s a one to one connection or not. You need to consider something more arbitrary. In your case it is how does a person’s wealth compare to the average wealth per person.
So in deciding whether to rob a person of wealth-K, or in other words, in deciding whether he does not deserve a certain portion of his wealth, you need to consider two things. Those are,
1. Does he have a one to one connection to wealth-K
2. Is his wealth above the average wealth per person
Get the point? The point is, not having a one to one connection to your wealth alone does not make you undeserving of a certain portion of your wealth, even according to you.
I brought this up only to support my position that a person cannot be robbed of his wealth or GPA solely on the basis of not having a one to one connection to wealth or GPA. It is possible for a person to still deserve his wealth even though he has no one to one connection to it.
Up to now in this comment, all I have done is supporting my view. Now I shall do the refutation of your argument.
I want you to consider the following statement you made.
“A person entitled on the basis of his own competencies for 4.5, might get 6.5 with the help of external factors but not 9.5″
I do not know where you find this kind of GPA scale, but I can afford not to mock you. What I want you consider is the phrase “external factors” in your comment.
What constitutes an external factor, and what constitutes internal factors?
Are internal factors the things inside your body, and external factors are things outside your body? If that is the case, a computer chip transplanted inside your brain is an internal factor. That can’t be right.
You might consider internal factors are biological attributes that you are born with, and everything else is an external factor. This leads to a confusion. The nutrition you got after your birth are external factors. There is no difference between those nutrition, and the nutrition you got when you were inside your mother’s womb because she ate them for you, supplied them to you through her blood. Even your genetic content was determined by an external factor – intercourse.
Therefore, the only meaningful classification of internal and external factors are as follows.
Internal factors – Factors over which you have control
External factors – Factors over which you have no or little control
Now consider the following,
1. Under which category does your IQ fall?
2. Under which category does your good health fall?
3. Under which category does your ability to do hard work fall?
4. Under which category does your parents fall?
5. Under which category does the environment in which you grew up fall?
I believe it is obvious that factors 1,4 and 5 fall under external factors.
Factors 2 and 3 would be completely external factors if the universe was deterministic. Even if the universe is not deterministic, both factors 2 and 3 are more external than internal since genetic disposition of the person has the biggest impact on them.
Those are five of the most important facts that I can think of that has an impact on your GPA.
I hope that you see that when you write 2+2=4 in your examination paper, even though you think it has a lot to do with internal factors over which you have control, in actuality this act is mostly determined by many other factors over which you had absolutely no control.
You draw a difference between wealth and GPA based on a belief that GPA is mostly determined by internal factors of a person, and wealth is determined mostly by external factors. But you define internal factors and external factors in a meaningless way. In fact, I’m not sure whether you even have clear definition for internal and external factors.
I must stress that my definition of internal and external factors is the only meaningful way they can be defined in this context. Your claim that success based on internal factors are deserved while success based on external factors are undeserved. This could only be true if the person had control over the internal factors, and no or little control over the external factors. I hope that much is obvious.
Dear sharanga;
This is a pathetic situation. It seems irony of fate some people’s intellectual productivity seems very low despite their claim that they have a higher GPA and good education. They need a lot of effort to understand a trivial thing. It seems these positive intellectual factors themselves are the reason for the deficiency. I call this sort of deficiency “book worm syndrome”. They need to consume big theories and heap of arguments to understand a small thing. I don’t think a person with an average common sense needs anything else to understand the injustice of economic inequality prevailing in the world. But a person claim to have a big GPA still cannot understand this trivial fact.
“Emperor’s clothe” denotes a similar situation. Wisest ministers and courtiers could not realize that the emperor in front of them was only wearing the “cold clothe of the sky”, while a lad hanging onto his mother’s arm pointed his finger to the manhood of the emperor.
In your last birth were you a minister with a high GPA, dear sharanga? Or were you an emperor?
Ha! Ha!!
Thanks!
(Please post this here, not below)
Dear sharanga;
“I hope that you see that when you write 2+2=4 in your examination paper, even though you think it has a lot to do with internal factors over which you have control, in actuality this act is mostly determined by many other factors over which you had absolutely no control.”
Please teach your course of education to a donkey, measure his GPA in the term end exam and decide the internal factors and external factors that affect GPA.
Got my point?
Thanks!
Yapa
That’s it. You are behaving like a sour loser should. Take care.
Dear sharanga;
How much was the donkey’s GPA? Higher than your or less? Ha! Ha!!
Thanks!
Dear Sharanga
“Indeed, if you think Buddhism is compatible with evolution, there is no point in sharing anything with you either.”
How is Buddhism incompatible with evolution?
Wijayapala,
I have to direct you again to my blog post titled “Rejecting Religion”. In short, the philosophy behind not just evolution, but science itself is reductionistic matetialism. It is indeed incompatible with the philosophy behind virtually every religion in the world- non reductionistic non materialism.
Dear sharanga,
I did not see anything in your article that specifically addressed the topic of Buddhism and evolution (and I might regretfully add, it was a bit boring). It would help if you would avoid sweeping (and long-winded) generalisations in the future. Thank you.
Wijayapala,
I thought adressing karma, and consciousness was specific enough to cover buddhism.
If you found the article boring, don’t be regretful to say it. It wasn’t supposed to be fun to read for religionists.
Dear sharanga
“I thought adressing karma, and consciousness was specific enough to cover buddhism.”
But you hardly addressed consciousness and used the word “karma” only once in that entire blog post. So no, I’m afraid your post was inadequate in answering my question about Buddhism and evolution.
“If you found the article boring, don’t be regretful to say it. It wasn’t supposed to be fun to read for religionists.”
But was it meant to be “fun” for anyone? Just asking.
Dear sharanga;
Where did you address karma and consciousness in your article?
I think it is a massive task than you think.
Thanks!
Yapa,
I wrote on my blog,
The fact that religions have those fundamentally complex, ontologically basic mental things, such as god, karma, soul etc. provides us a very good reason to reject religion a priori.
It’s not my problem that you skipped it. For consciousness is addressed in the last three paragraphs.
And no, it’s not such a massive task. Once you find something common to all religion, and find a reason to call it false, it’s over.
Dear sharanga
Could I say that I know I have won when my opponent stop(s) engaging with arguments directly, and instead vaguely refer(s) me to a single sentence in his blog?
Dear sharanga;
“And no, it’s not such a massive task. Once you find something common to all religion, and find a reason to call it false, it’s over.”
Tell me something about that common thing to all religions.
Thanks!
Dear sharanga;
“For consciousness is addressed in the last three paragraphs.”
You are a hell of a genius no. In three paragraphs?
Thanks!
Actually wijayapala, I was under the impression that your one liner question warranted only one liner answers. But if you consider it was a debate, then indeed you can consider yourself victorious. Congratulations!
Dear Sharanga,
I am sure you must be aware that grades are “bell curved”? Usually a way of spreading grades across a “normal” distribution. So actually your GPA has already been distributed.
Most things in the world are spread across a normal distribution with the exception of wealth. In Sri Lanka the top 10% hold 40% of the wealth and the bottom 10% hold just a little above 1%. According to the UN 45% are below the poverty line (less than $2 per day).
Any ideas how we may narrow or do away with this gross inequality without resorting to “wealth redistribution through government policies”? If altruism could have done it we wouldn’t be in this position worldwide now would we?
Georgethebushpig,
I know the GPA is distributed. But it’s hardly the point, is it? The issue is the intuition behind it. You ask a guy with 4.0 GPA whether he’d like if the dean gave 0.5 of it to a guy with 3.0 GPA, and you can imagine the answer.
As to your second question, I have only one idea and that is not applicable right now. See, the problem is, power corrupts. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. This has to do with our evolutionary past. The idea behind limiting government power is to limit the corruption.
So the only fool-proof way to do this would be to make an artificial super intelligence, which would justify the redistibution through utilitarian morals, and redistribute with impeccable mathematical precision. I know this far fetched. But not impossible.
The main flaw in Sharanga’s argument comparing GPA with wealth is that
1. GPA can be increased without any cost to the rest of the population, unlike wealth. In the case of wealth, if you are using more land, food, energy, minerals then you are also taking it away from others who could be using it.
2. Wealth can be handed on from generation to generation unlike GPA. A wealthy person who inherited his wealth from his parents may not have done anything to deserve it.
3. Wealth can be accrued unscrupulously unlike GPA.
So it is a specious argument to say that wealth should not be taken away for redistribution just as one’s IQ or GPA should not be.
kadphises,
You are talking as if GPA has no impact on life’s outcomes. Do you deny the fact that there are people with higher GPAs than you have, have a negative impact on your opportunities?
Dear Sharanga,
The “point” was to show that your analogy is faulty and in fact, Kadphises has done a much better job in neatly thrashing your false construct. And btw I wasn’t arguing that wealth should be distributed along a normal distribution, it was merely to illustrate the “abnormality” of inequality.
What I find amusing is how you get your right wing arguments all mixed up. The right wing argument for “limited government power” has nothing to do with “limiting corruption” but leaving people to do their thing without government interference.
The irony of your argument however is rich (no pun intended) – governments are corrupt because they serve the interests of the wealthy class. It’s not the poor people who are gaining from kickbacks on mega deals now is it? I’m sure the beneficiaries will claim that this wealth is “legitimately” theirs and make all the subsidiary arguments that go with it!
The international wealthy class was not beating their chests crying for limited government when Government bailed their sorry posteriors out did they? When the poorer people had to pay for maintaining the “legitimately” gained wealth of the rich, redistribution was well and good wasn’t it? Profits are private losses public: isn’t it how it goes these days?
The supreme irony of your whole argument is that it makes a pretty good case as to why we need to have punitive legislation governing the redistribution of wealth. And while you wait for your “artificial super intelligence” I wish that my dumbass government throws you and any others born out of wedlock, in jail for not paying their taxes! And you are most welcome to hold on to your GPA for whatever ’tis worth.
George,
If you think analogy is faulty, keep on thinking that. I have an exam next week. Would you do it for me?
If you find it amusing that I mix-up right wing arguments, keep on being amused. I have no intention of robbing you of your amusement. I find it amusing however that you look at people in right-wing, left-wing terms. Your politics is binary, which is amusing.
I find it even more amusing that you think governments serve the interests of the wealthy class. Karl Marx has been dead for over a century and you still think that there exists such a thing as class awareness. It is amusing that you don’t realize people with power do not serve the interests over any particular class, but rather themselves.
I find it amusing that you think I need to justify the actions of the “international wealthy class”? I don’t have a red shirt. Can you send me one?
“My dumbass government throws you and any others born out of wedlock, in jail for not paying their taxes! And you are most welcome to hold on to your GPA for whatever ’tis worth.”
????????????
Brilliant.
Dear Sharanga,
Given your understanding of the world and your analytical skills I volunteer Yapa to help you out in that exam of yours! Man, with Nutters in Arms like you guys we are all in Dire Straits!
I was in agreement with you in the argument that evolution is not teleological but then you made the fatal Social-Darwinist error of trying to justify wealth attribution on the grounds of “survival of the fittest”.
These were the same arguments that the colonial project used and remain hale and hearty to-date in the monopoly-capitalist project (Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” being the corollary to “survival of the fittest”). The idea that evolution has favored some with more superior genes and therefore they are entitled to favored status. That sub-optimal outcomes of evolution have to just put up or shut up. The logical extension of this thinking leads to “what is mine is mine” but ironically also to “what is yours is also mine” (because of the superior nature of the fittest); hence the post-colonial terminology of the “Commonwealth”.
If we are to use biology as a guide to social organisation it is better that we look to symbiosis and mutualism. These associations are actually a lot more prevalent in nature than the survival of the fittest kind. It is these forms of cooperation that create resilient ecosystems (mycorrhiza/plant), and to extend it to people, resilient societies. In conclusion you gotta give to get. So shut up and pay your taxes you deadbeat!
George,
If I work 40 hours a week, and the tax rate is 20%, I will be working 8 hours per week for nothing. That means 32 hours per month, 384 hours per year, and if assume I work for 40 years, I work for 15,360 hours for nothing. That is 1 year and 9 months of slave labour during the course of my lifetime.
I find your comment amusing. But no thanks.
George,
In any case, I wonder whether it is advisable to advocate normal distribution for wealth simply because it makes emotional sense. I’m not an economist, but I think we should consider the effects of various distributions. For example, higher income generally leads to a higher propensity to invest, because of the decreasing marginal utility of consumption. So if we want a very high investment level, then we “should” have a very unequal distribution of income (don’t interpret this as an justification for inequality).
Dear Georgethebushpig/Sharanga;
I don’t think your notion that GPA is distributed is correct.
It is true that the whole population of GPA’s distributed in a normal bell curve, however, it does not say individual GPA is distributed among other GPS’s or shared with other GPA holders.
Though all the GPA.s are distributed in a normal bell curve, no mark is deducted from any of the GPA’s.
Yours was a misconception.
Thanks!
Yapa,
This tangential to our main topic so I’d rathet not argue, even though distribution, and not just redistribution, has some relevance to it.
Dear sharanga;
Sure it is tangential. However, except for this faulty fact, I think georgethebushpig was right in his message he wanted to pass to the readers in his post.
Thanks!