The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by cassowary » Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:31 am

The triumph of Inequality
Inequality is spreading into the furthest corners of the world economy. In remote villages where everyone farmed the same kind of subsistence plot or sat in the same kind of market stall, mobile broadband allows the cleverest person in the village to access the global market through platforms like Alibaba. The grim equality of rural life will disappear; the talented few will gain access to markets and capital and get rich by hiring their neighbors.
Technology will create more inequality. That's point number 1 from Spengler.
Except for a few aberrant episodes like the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese never had an expectation of equality: They always assumed that the top scorer on the exam would go on to power and money.
The Chinese never expect people to be equal. That's point no. 2 from Spengler.

The point I want to make is this. Cultures that cannot accept inequality will adopt Socialism. In the west, it was the Protestant cultures that best-accepted capitalism. That was because they believed that success in your chosen vocation was a sign of God's blessings. Envy was a sin to be avoided. Thus, in their formative years of the late 19th and early 20th century, they did better than the Catholic countries of Southern Europe and South America.

With the decline of the Christian faith in the US, people will find Socialism attractive. Many of the young support Bernie Sanders.

Socialism will fail as it always does. Look at Venezuela. It is those cultures that can better-accept inequality that will prosper. Those who cannot, will become poorer. Of course, all cultures have its limit when it comes to tolerating inequality. But the ones who can tolerate it best will be the most prosperous in the new world of high tech firms.

The thing is that capitalism causes prosperity but inequality. Socialism causes equality but poverty. As Churchill said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

The better a society can accept inequality, the better for everybody, in the long run, even the poor. The poor in the US is better off than the middle class in Venezuela, Cuba and N Korea.

seekingfortruth
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:57 pm

Re: The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by seekingfortruth » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:46 am

It is those cultures that can better-accept inequality that will prosper. Those who cannot, will become poorer. Of course, all cultures have its limit when it comes to tolerating inequality. But the ones who can tolerate it best will be the most prosperous in the new world of high tech firms.
If so, why aren't Hindu India and Islamic Middle East already dominating the world ?

neverfail
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by neverfail » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:27 pm

seekingfortruth wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:46 am
It is those cultures that can better-accept inequality that will prosper. Those who cannot, will become poorer. Of course, all cultures have its limit when it comes to tolerating inequality. But the ones who can tolerate it best will be the most prosperous in the new world of high tech firms.
If so, why aren't Hindu India and Islamic Middle East already dominating the world ?
Yes SFT. Were it not that I know cassowary on this website from way back I would laugh at him for ostensibly trying to pull an online prank. But this guy seems to be in earnest in flogging the same old dead horses over and over again. ;)

neverfail
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by neverfail » Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:18 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:31 am
The triumph of Inequality

Except for a few aberrant episodes like the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese never had an expectation of equality: They always assumed that the top scorer on the exam would go on to power and money.
The Chinese never expect people to be equal. That's point no. 2 from Spengler.
He is surely right there, isn't he cassowary. The fact that they live in a one party-state where there is, and has been from the beginning, institutionalised inequality of POWER (i.e. between the privileged Party members and the far more numerous non-privileged outsiders - along with the various inequality of rank and status within the ruling party itself) proves this to be so.

Had Chiang Kai Check and the nationalists won the Chinese civil war (1945 to 1949) instead of the Communists it would have been the same story. Chiang, till the day he died, never permitted democracy to bud on Formosa. They, instead of the Communists, would have been the top scorer in the exam and therefore entitled to the power and money.

Same old shit in a different toilet bowl!

My past tertiary study of Chinese history informed me that the Chinese Communist Party is and always was far more "Chinese" in character than it ever was Marxist-Leninist.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by cassowary » Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:41 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:18 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:31 am
The triumph of Inequality

Except for a few aberrant episodes like the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese never had an expectation of equality: They always assumed that the top scorer on the exam would go on to power and money.
The Chinese never expect people to be equal. That's point no. 2 from Spengler.
He is surely right there, isn't he cassowary. The fact that they live in a one party-state where there is, and has been from the beginning, institutionalised inequality of POWER (i.e. between the privileged Party members and the far more numerous non-privileged outsiders - along with the various inequality of rank and status within the ruling party itself) proves this to be so.

Had Chiang Kai Check and the nationalists won the Chinese civil war (1945 to 1949) instead of the Communists it would have been the same story. Chiang, till the day he died, never permitted democracy to bud on Formosa. They, instead of the Communists, would have been the top scorer in the exam and therefore entitled to the power and money.

Same old shit in a different toilet bowl!

My past tertiary study of Chinese history informed me that the Chinese Communist Party is and always was far more "Chinese" in character than it ever was Marxist-Leninist.
The Imperial exam had been around for thousands of years and based on merit. The top scorers are the brightest of the land. Unequal result is expected. That is the point. The lack of democracy has nothing to do with it. Singapore proudly practices meritocracy with its implied inequality of results.

neverfail
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by neverfail » Sun Aug 20, 2017 3:35 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:41 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:18 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:31 am
The triumph of Inequality

Except for a few aberrant episodes like the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese never had an expectation of equality: They always assumed that the top scorer on the exam would go on to power and money.
The Chinese never expect people to be equal. That's point no. 2 from Spengler.
He is surely right there, isn't he cassowary. The fact that they live in a one party-state where there is, and has been from the beginning, institutionalised inequality of POWER (i.e. between the privileged Party members and the far more numerous non-privileged outsiders - along with the various inequality of rank and status within the ruling party itself) proves this to be so.

Had Chiang Kai Check and the nationalists won the Chinese civil war (1945 to 1949) instead of the Communists it would have been the same story. Chiang, till the day he died, never permitted democracy to bud on Formosa. They, instead of the Communists, would have been the top scorer in the exam and therefore entitled to the power and money.

Same old shit in a different toilet bowl!

My past tertiary study of Chinese history informed me that the Chinese Communist Party is and always was far more "Chinese" in character than it ever was Marxist-Leninist.
The Imperial exam had been around for thousands of years and based on merit. The top scorers are the brightest of the land. Unequal result is expected. That is the point. The lack of democracy has nothing to do with it. Singapore proudly practices meritocracy with its implied inequality of results.
Any exam anywhere in the World is bound to score unequal marks among the participants. It would be surprising were it otherwise. What irks me is the way he (and you) try to place cutthroat competitiveness high on a pedestal as a morality to be lauded and emulated.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by cassowary » Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:19 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Aug 20, 2017 3:35 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:41 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:18 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:31 am
The triumph of Inequality

Except for a few aberrant episodes like the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese never had an expectation of equality: They always assumed that the top scorer on the exam would go on to power and money.
The Chinese never expect people to be equal. That's point no. 2 from Spengler.
He is surely right there, isn't he cassowary. The fact that they live in a one party-state where there is, and has been from the beginning, institutionalised inequality of POWER (i.e. between the privileged Party members and the far more numerous non-privileged outsiders - along with the various inequality of rank and status within the ruling party itself) proves this to be so.

Had Chiang Kai Check and the nationalists won the Chinese civil war (1945 to 1949) instead of the Communists it would have been the same story. Chiang, till the day he died, never permitted democracy to bud on Formosa. They, instead of the Communists, would have been the top scorer in the exam and therefore entitled to the power and money.

Same old shit in a different toilet bowl!

My past tertiary study of Chinese history informed me that the Chinese Communist Party is and always was far more "Chinese" in character than it ever was Marxist-Leninist.
The Imperial exam had been around for thousands of years and based on merit. The top scorers are the brightest of the land. Unequal result is expected. That is the point. The lack of democracy has nothing to do with it. Singapore proudly practices meritocracy with its implied inequality of results.
Any exam anywhere in the World is bound to score unequal marks among the participants. It would be surprising were it otherwise. What irks me is the way he (and you) try to place cutthroat competitiveness high on a pedestal as a morality to be lauded and emulated.



Of course. Those who comes out on top of this competitive process desterves to earn more. What irks me is that there are people who thinks themselves entitled to their hard earned money.

neverfail
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by neverfail » Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:41 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:19 am

Of course. Those who comes out on top of this competitive process desterves to earn more. What irks me is that there are people who thinks themselves entitled to their hard earned money.
There you go again; presuming that those who come out on top must automatically be as pure as driven snow! :roll:

Why do they always deserve to earn more? I for one do not equate being more amorally ruthless in pursuit of ones own interests as the moral basis for greater entitlement!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by cassowary » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:41 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:41 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:19 am

Of course. Those who comes out on top of this competitive process desterves to earn more. What irks me is that there are people who thinks themselves entitled to their hard earned money.
There you go again; presuming that those who come out on top must automatically be as pure as driven snow! :roll:

Why do they always deserve to earn more? I for one do not equate being more amorally ruthless in pursuit of ones own interests as the moral basis for greater entitlement!
Not all successful people are like that Neverfail. Success starts in school. First, you study hard. Then with your academic credentials, you find a job or work for yourself and earn money. You save and invest your money. The money grows and you grow wealthy. Someday, you need not work and can retire. It takes discipline and self-sacrifice. I don't see why others are entitled to his money via Socialism.

neverfail
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The triumph of inequality by David Goldman

Post by neverfail » Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:19 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:41 am


Not all successful people are like that Neverfail. Success starts in school. First, you study hard. Then with your academic credentials, you find a job or work for yourself and earn money. You save and invest your money. The money grows and you grow wealthy. Someday, you need not work and can retire. It takes discipline and self-sacrifice. I don't see why others are entitled to his money via Socialism.
Were it not for your weird take on what constitutes "Socialism"; there would not be a word above that I feel moved to disagree with.
..............................................................................................

There is however something I notice you repeatedly fail to mention when attributing worldly success to private virtue. You need to add the caveat "all other things being equal" for the sake of the bigger picture. Across our planet all other things are often very unequal.

I am thankful that I was born in a politically stable country where rule of law is respected by governed and government alike. Not everyone in this world has that privilege. I have, because of this, been able to amass a modest but comfortable fortune approximately according to the formula you define above. Had I been born in a failed state in a constant state of civil war, even were I equipped with these attributes it is highly unlikely that I would have anything better to look forward to other than, at best, mere survival in a refugee camp in a foreign land that does not want me.

I am, likewise, glad that I was born of middle class parents who took my education seriously. Had I been born and raised (let's say) in some Aboriginal camp in our remote outback, I would have been a rare bird indeed to have achieved anything like as much as I have. Indeed, I do not need to even visit an outback Aboriginal camp to find people in my own country who do not take the school education of their youngsters seriously enough.

There are so many chance variables that can affect an individual's destiny that I would argue that, ultimately, the enjoyment of worldly success is an act of divine providence - God's blessing! For this you can thank the special set of conditions that permitted you to "grow" the virtues that promise success and then to reap the fruits thereafter.

Having stated that - worldly success does not always bring happiness in its wake. Furthermore, the size of one's income and/or asset portfolio does not guarantee anyone a place in heaven in the afterlife. What greater failure can there be than to grow fabulously rich but spend an eternity in hell thereafter?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests