I do not believe that wealth equality or equality at all is desirable.
I understand that many working class people find themselves in a precarious position nowadays. I am sympathetic, but I believe that this is better addressed by reforms to the capitalist system than socialism.
In my previous comment I already addressed why I think most people would be more comfortable and better suited having less economic power. This does not necessarily mean their quality of life is worse.
Regarding your other point: “I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity).” I completely disagree. The reason the “current and future health of humanity” is not accounted for is that under a market system these things are not factored into the price. So the market as a regulating tool is ignoring these issues. It would be no different if a commonly owned investment fund was investing, for instance, as it would still do things that make the most sense under a market system. This is known as a problem of externalities, and it is an argument for government intervention in the market system that I fully accept, but not for redistribution of wealth as that will likely not change anything for as long as markets are involved.
But money is power and power is expressed through regulatory capture. It’s not right, but there will always be pressure towards wealth dictating the market structure and rules. Ultra wealth inequality dismantles the systems you expect to ensure externalities are considered.
In any case, yes, we agree that markets often fail on considerations of important externalities. Furthermore, we agree that government has a role in correcting that.
Economic power is power, yes.
I do not believe that wealth equality or equality at all is desirable.
I understand that many working class people find themselves in a precarious position nowadays. I am sympathetic, but I believe that this is better addressed by reforms to the capitalist system than socialism.
In my previous comment I already addressed why I think most people would be more comfortable and better suited having less economic power. This does not necessarily mean their quality of life is worse.
Regarding your other point: “I also believe that broad ownership results in less destructive means of generating returns. The wealthiest individuals don’t act responsibly (i.e., returns supercede consideration of current and future health and well-being of humanity).” I completely disagree. The reason the “current and future health of humanity” is not accounted for is that under a market system these things are not factored into the price. So the market as a regulating tool is ignoring these issues. It would be no different if a commonly owned investment fund was investing, for instance, as it would still do things that make the most sense under a market system. This is known as a problem of externalities, and it is an argument for government intervention in the market system that I fully accept, but not for redistribution of wealth as that will likely not change anything for as long as markets are involved.
But money is power and power is expressed through regulatory capture. It’s not right, but there will always be pressure towards wealth dictating the market structure and rules. Ultra wealth inequality dismantles the systems you expect to ensure externalities are considered.
In any case, yes, we agree that markets often fail on considerations of important externalities. Furthermore, we agree that government has a role in correcting that.
That is actually a good point. Unusual, but welcome.