Consideration of empathy, and of history, would indicate the answer is a firm "No." Look at the standard of living 100 years ago, 150 years ago, 200 years ago, etc. Compare someone, say, at bottom, say the bottom decile today. Look at life expectancy, caloric intake, material conditions, etc., and compare them to the living standards of the top 10% 100 years ago. There is not reason to think that progress ends here, in 2015. So what shows more empathy, free markets that give incentives for progress and advancement, the kind that raise all boats over time? Or a scheme that equalizes the present standard of living, but greatly reduces incentives for future improvements?
In other words, imagine asking your hypothetical question back in 1915, 1815, 1715, or at any other time in history. It seems to me that equalizing wealth would almost always have been the wrong answer, even from the empathy perspective.
Read other related questions on Quora:
- Wealth Redistribution: Is online advertising a vehicle for charity?
- If wealth were redistributed, could everybody on Earth live like the 1% lived in ancient times?
- If the top 1% were to actually have their wealth redistributed evenly amongst the rest of the population, how would that affect the economy and inflation?
from Quora http://ift.tt/2g6vXDY
No comments:
Post a Comment