Social Inequality: Bad, Good, or just a Fact

Dan Arielly had this old survey about what people thought about Social Inequality (Wealth Inequality) http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealth-inequality. It is one of the more contentious matters of research.

In economics, wealth inequality happens to occur naturally. Its not something bad, it just happens. As an organization grows, like a triangle scaling larger, the area gets bigger while the upper tip gets higher. Because Market Forces act like a natural selection, where organization that meet the requirements and demands of the public grow in influence and power, economically it is more efficient to let such practical forces dictate what works or what doesn't.

In politics, wealth/social inequality compromises democracy if democracy would be described as consensus building decision making process where each member has a different POV and near equal level of influence. When one influence and POV overshadows all other POVs, then it is not a true consensus but more of "might makes right".

Now the problem is that social/wealth inequality is usually used for rhetoric and there is not sufficient clarification or disclaimer of another side of the matter: the facts about why it occurs, how it is part of a meritocratic process of a free market, and how it may have no agenda at all.

Like the survey of Dan Ariely, there is a problem regarding perception and understanding about wealth inequality. People think things are "fairer" when people are more equal, yet it does not address the reality that things are way more complicated. that one cannot even make a clear comparison without bring out metrics that measure using material indicators.

I guess then disclaimer should be that, as wealth inequality gets greater there are ways to safeguard decision making by consensus, free from the influence of station.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Technically I'm done with the project

Gurps Mysteries

330mg of Caffeine will do the trick