> To the degree that there is inequality, there is opportunity for the poor to trade and excel. To the degree that there is disparity, there is success for all who collaborate in peace.
Could you elaborate on this exposition? Are you saying that the more inequality and disparity there is the more opportunity to excel and success by collaboration? This part feels very profound, but I'm slightly confused by it.
Yes. If you are poor person in a world with zero inequality, that means that everyone else around you is similarly poor. This limits your options and trading potential. But if you are a poor person in a world with some degree of inequality, that increases your opportunities with richer trading partners. The higher the inequality (as in the alien case), the higher the potential.
> There is a reason that 20th century South Koreans—not 10th century Anglo-Saxons—went from fettered agricultural poverty to relative global super power in less than three generations. They did so through the trade and competition and collaboration afforded by capitalist freedom. They did so without a sword in sight. And they could have only done so much so quickly as a result of the existing wealthy neighbouring nations competing for their business. They became rich because of economic inequality, not in spite of it. And for the betterment of everyone else, to boot.
Could you elaborate on this idea, that economic inequality is a _driver_ of wealth creation under freedom? How so? What's the mechanism? What business of impoverished farmers were South Korea's wealthy neighbours competing for?
Is the idea that, given freedom, opportunities open up other than farming? Or something in that ballpark?
Certainly. I'm not 100% on the specifics fot South Korea, but generally speaking, contempory economic transition from agriculture goes to cheap manufacturer ("sweat shops"), which then lead to middle-classhood and beyond. You can see this in other East and South Asian countries, Malaysia for example, as poor farmers travel to inner cities to work in factories.
Now, I think the capitalist/Libertarians types are too quick to celebrate cheap labour as the great noble saviour. It is abhorrent. But it is also objectively better than subsistence living, and the fastest way out of poverty without violence. You can't regulate your way out of scarcity, nor redistribute wealth without destroying it. So, as ever, speed *and stability* is the answer, which the market provides through both innovation (creativity) and competiton (criticism). And the bigger the gap between rich and poor, the faster this process can occur, due to the existence of richer and more numerous investors.
> To the degree that there is inequality, there is opportunity for the poor to trade and excel. To the degree that there is disparity, there is success for all who collaborate in peace.
Could you elaborate on this exposition? Are you saying that the more inequality and disparity there is the more opportunity to excel and success by collaboration? This part feels very profound, but I'm slightly confused by it.
Yes. If you are poor person in a world with zero inequality, that means that everyone else around you is similarly poor. This limits your options and trading potential. But if you are a poor person in a world with some degree of inequality, that increases your opportunities with richer trading partners. The higher the inequality (as in the alien case), the higher the potential.
Fun read!
> There is a reason that 20th century South Koreans—not 10th century Anglo-Saxons—went from fettered agricultural poverty to relative global super power in less than three generations. They did so through the trade and competition and collaboration afforded by capitalist freedom. They did so without a sword in sight. And they could have only done so much so quickly as a result of the existing wealthy neighbouring nations competing for their business. They became rich because of economic inequality, not in spite of it. And for the betterment of everyone else, to boot.
Could you elaborate on this idea, that economic inequality is a _driver_ of wealth creation under freedom? How so? What's the mechanism? What business of impoverished farmers were South Korea's wealthy neighbours competing for?
Is the idea that, given freedom, opportunities open up other than farming? Or something in that ballpark?
Thanks!
Certainly. I'm not 100% on the specifics fot South Korea, but generally speaking, contempory economic transition from agriculture goes to cheap manufacturer ("sweat shops"), which then lead to middle-classhood and beyond. You can see this in other East and South Asian countries, Malaysia for example, as poor farmers travel to inner cities to work in factories.
Now, I think the capitalist/Libertarians types are too quick to celebrate cheap labour as the great noble saviour. It is abhorrent. But it is also objectively better than subsistence living, and the fastest way out of poverty without violence. You can't regulate your way out of scarcity, nor redistribute wealth without destroying it. So, as ever, speed *and stability* is the answer, which the market provides through both innovation (creativity) and competiton (criticism). And the bigger the gap between rich and poor, the faster this process can occur, due to the existence of richer and more numerous investors.
Ugh, why is my spelling so bad