Elon Musk can waste 100 trillion dollars on that Mars colony that's never gonna happen, I don't really care about that. I just want to be able to earn enough money so that not all of them go on my rent, bills and taxes.
@@freedomofspeech2867 I understand I gotta pay taxes. It's just that in my country, middle class and lower class people have to pay really high taxes too.
literally just did a study on this and theres a 90% correlation between gini index and relative poverty. It's not about inequality so much as it's about getting people out of relative poverty. The best ways are with things like free education and healthcare as they actually mean the government has to collect less tax in the long run. People keep mistaking the idea that unequal income distribution isn't fair when in fact all we need is for no-one to be stuck at the very bottom of society. (Note, this probably means taxing the wealthy more temporarily but would result in long-run decreases in tax on them as governments have less requirement for income transfers - because people can actually earn a living wage!)
I guess it's more of a 'trying to curb inequality as much as possible' instead of a 'getting rid of inequality' kinda situation. Getting rid of it seems unrealistic.
It seems unnrealistic because this video was funded by the rich 1%, the WEF represents the world plutocracy. They want you to believe it is not possible. It is extremely difficult since the rich own all the world's politicians, but it is not impossible to change the syste.
I think there's a misunderstanding of equality here. They're using it as everyone's outcome should be equal. Equal wage etc. But was it fair? As in was the opportunity there etc? Is it okay to tax someone a higher percentage because they're more successful? 🤔 Is it morally okay?
Some "inequality" is OK, as long as the bottom group can survive comfortably and the top group re-invest and become good employers. Sadly that is not happening in too many places, causing misery for many.
I'd argue that some inequality isn't just ok, it's necessary. After all, nobody is making any money unless they have a job, and no one can have a job if there's no one to pay them for their work. The issue is being the employer comes with responsibility, and many employers have gotten so far from their employees that there's basically no consequences for failing that responsibility.
I also think that there are inevitable issues with the idea of education being fundamental in lowering inequality. I say this because, as we’re seeing now, we have a massive overly-educated undereducated group of people in the workforce. Most jobs don’t require a 4 year degree. And unfortunately out of the fear of someone being “unequal” we push them through universities even if they aren’t actually worthy of the degree (in terms of actual learning vs Cs get degrees). It reminds me of the Vietnamese War where America marked success with body counts. Thus discretion on who’s actually an enemy and who’s a non combatant led to an angry distrustful local populace. It’s important to consider the real world consequences of using one or two standards to mark the success of very complex situations
@@TheGregamonster if everyone in the US is paid equally, everyone would make $147,000 per year (US GDP/Working population). everyone will be living comfortably, and no one would have money problems. The only thing preventing that from happening is greed.
@@beamboy14526 if everyone in the US is paid equally, then no one has any incentive to to the jobs that are hard or unpleasant when they could just be doing nothing instead and get paid the same, and then society collapses. Just because we have enough money for everyone to live comfortably doesn't mean we can afford to give it to everyone regardless of how much or little they contribute.
@@TheGregamonster This one bothers me the most of all the arguments. We already KNOW that the jobs which are brutal and dangerous don't pay ANYTHING close to jobs that anyone would be cool with doing. We also found out that even when faced with ZERO PEOPLE APPLYING, businesses will not raise wages. Which actually proves that wages aren't tied to a supply/demand model either. In reality wages are based ENTIRELY off of the minimum a business has been able to offer a particular job for. A minimum which they will try to stick to for decades until their competitors are offering too much for that minimum to work anymore. In fact we KNOW this is the case as the only reason we have 8 hour work weeks is because Henry Ford offered it to steal all of his competitions skilled labor and it was impossible as a business to compete with that. So really the only thing that changes what people are paid for a job is how much of an impact that wage makes in the competitive market for labor.
Inequality is less important than what the lowest rung of society has. We should strive to raise the floor of society so that everyone's needs are met. We have the means.
@@freesk8 And yet the free market has screwed many people especially in sectors like housing and healthcare. When there will always be a demand for something, they will be able to do whatever they however they want. Government regulations are still important in keeping a free market stable and free from abuse. Essential things like healthcare should be kept in check to make sure things like price-gouging not exist. Both free market and government regulations are important and should work together so that a better economy and society is created.
Shut up. These people are funded by the rich. They don't care about poverty and inequality. They just care about making us feel better about being poor.
@@XOPOIIIO So just to be clear, are you saying that if someone can't earn enough money to live, like for example because they are paraplegic, then they should just die? If it's not what you are saying, then please add some nuance to your discourse.
@@Tamizushi I said "equal responsibilities" not "no responsibilities". I also don't understand the idea to help paraplegic from the money you stole, instead of your own.
Amazing video as usual. I just have to point out that the world economic forum is funded by billion-dollar industries that actually work against the same principles detailed in this video.
You work for 40yrs to have $1m in your retirement, Meanwhile some people are putting just $10k in a meme coin for just few months and now they are multi millionaires. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life
Success depend on the action or step you take to achieve it. Show me a man who has no investments I will tell you how soon he will go broke. Investment is building a safe Heaven for the future.....
@@sanchezrebreto2202 I agree with you friend investing is the key to maintaining your financial longevity and not just investment , but an investment with guaranteed profitability......
Most investment failure and losses generally occur when you Invest without proper guidance and analysis of the investment profit and risk percentage......
@@lucianeprestes1274 I agree with you. That is why with Mrs Maria Wood managing my portfolio for me and making profit for me on my portfolio, I experienced a great rate of return on my portfolio......
I REALLY LOVE THIS NEW STYLE YOU GUYS ARE TRYING. I love the characters. They're so full of emotion, they literally feel like human beings and that's what makes this video so wholesome. I actually enjoyed this video whilst learning about something new
@@InspirationPurpose in the Soviet Union the lowest salary was 70 rubles per month for street sweepers while the highest salary was for the president, 800 rubles per month. and there is a wealth limit where 1 person can only have a maximum of 2 houses and 1 car
Their perspective is that once they make everyone else poor, living in pods they dont own, renting their clothes, eating food made from bugs, working via vr headset, having to get permission to go outside. THE even though they will all still be massively rich owning everything and doing whatever they want, they think that still counts as more "equity" than before.
Not sure that wealth inequality is the biggest problem on the worlds agenda. Their mission is to improve the state of the world through business and government channels. They are not concerned with balancing the scales so much as increasing the wellbeing of everyone in the system.
@@XOPOIIIO Those with the riches, have the obligation to give what they have exploited society to earn. Without the 99% of people being exploited, they would not have accumulated such obscene wealth.
Shut up. These people are funded by the rich. They don't care about poverty and inequality. They just care about making us feel better about being poor.
Wait you said "true income equality isn't possible, even in communist countries", but then implied that they're still using capitalism because people are being paid? If you're referring to the Soviet Union sure, but a literal communist country wouldn't even have wages or income.
When it comes to the world of investing,most people don't know where to start. Fortunately, great investors of the past and present can provide us with guidance.
It’s necessary to fight against POVERTY, not against inequality. For example, Haïti is much more equal than... Switzerland ! Why ? Because everybody Is very poor in Haïti !
Shouldn't they make educational videos based on their worldview? Shouldn't they say that higher taxation usually funds social programmes? Should they hide their sponsorship?... Why the irony, exactly?
@@Humanresouces a huge topic tbh but in my opinion: capitalism is the system that so far has “worked” the best for economic growth(not that it doesn’t need Improvement) 2.I personally dont like the idea of anyone being punished for doing well through redistribution and inheritance tax because it removes incentive. For example i can’t understand why it is morally wrong to want to work hard for your children and for redistribution i dont understand why its wrong to want to work hard to build a large company. And if you are very rich ceo most of your money isn’t even going towards yourself it goes towards growing the company. 3.The choice is between unfairness and inequality and which one you personally think is the lesser of two evils. The world cannot be fair and equal just by definition. Not saying i purely agree with one or the other just that tiptoeing into trying to create equality is very risky and needs to be done with much care as communism has shown throughout history.
i just dont like the possibility of bias in education. No they should not make videos on their worldview education should be from all perspectives. Not saying this video is bad i just dont like the “possibility” of bias sponsorship’s bring and also dont like 5:34 because it feels ironic to be sponsored and say this.
WEF propoganda here... This video isn't about inequality, it's about "Equity" (TM) i.e. Government rigging the outcome trying to make everyon "equal". Equality is about having the rules applied equally (which is desirable). Saying that capitalism creates inequality (or inequity as is described here) ignores the fact that capitalism creates wealth for everyone basically expanding the pie. Yes the percentage of the slice varies more widely for people, but on the whole they do better. Top down government control like the sponsor WEF advocates for is terrible policy for creating wealth and relies on the force of government to "improve" lives. This is ultimately just an excuse for the very people this video claims to admonish to grab more power. However instead of an elite capitalist it's an elite bureaucrat. The WEF still wants the power in the hands of a few, they just quibble about who exactly those few are.
A somewhat higher tax on the rich is fine but those that work hard to generate wealth for their families shouldnt be pesnalised to the point where all the wealth is nulled just because people hate rich people. - if you want to get rich you have to be willing to make the sacrafices that comed with that, youll have to work hard and be diciplined. Some inequality is neccesary in a competetive enviroment.
You should watch the video. and like actually pay attention to the reasons that inequality exist The method suggested to fix inequality and the fact that some inequality is natural.
"You are facing now a world in decline. It is not like the past, where there were always more regions to explore, always new frontiers to overcome and to develop and to exploit. The last few remaining unexplored and unexploited regions will not meet the demands of humanity now. The wealthy will have to take care of people; that is the purpose of their wealth-not just their families, and all of their desires, and all of their wishes and demands, but other people. If you are wealthy, you may need to feed a hundred people or five hundred people. Instead of a new fancy car or a bigger house, your wealth is going to have to take care of people, which will restore to you your own integrity and sense of value and sense of self-respect. How can you be happy parading your wealth when the hungry faces are staring at you? How can you feel good about yourself parading in your great vehicles and your expensive clothing and accessories while the poor are starving on the streets? Is that a source of self-comfort? Does that validate who you are and why you are in the world? To be a locust upon the world? To devastate the world?" A quote from - *_The Engine of War_* - a teaching from _The New Message from God_
Wealth exists to be used, using wealth helps other people, by buying their goods and services. This is often mockingly referred to as 'trickle down' economics, but that is how economics works. You earn and save, and then you either invest in making more money, by employing people, or you spend down the wealth on things, produced by other people for wages. This is a good thing !, far better than buying another missile to shoot Muslim weddings with...
Inequality is an inevitable consequence of neo liberal capitalism. It is a system that foster accumulation over repartition. In this paradigm, some people will always have too much when others will have nothing.
The WEF, which sponsored this video, is famous for having said that in the future they hope for, you will own nothing and be happy. And who will control everything? The WEF and the Billionaires and CEO's that fund it.
another joke of a vid from Ted. should our wealth even be equal ? no since humans are inequal, there solved 5:53 oh lord you don't wanna go on that topic or you'll be called antisemitic
A short Google Scholar search shows that there's growing evidence that early human societies were egalitarian. There have also been egalitarian tribes and peoples throughout history, though many of these were erased by imperialists or rivals. By this point in history, we should know well enough as humans that equality should be the norm. But special interests continue to try to convince us that that's an impossible dream. This partnership with WEF and videos made based on their pro-billionaire views has been beyond concerning, to the point that I sadly don't think I can watch TED-Ed any longer. I've found enough other great creators to make up for what I'll be missing here. For anyone else interested, creators like Khadija Mbowe, Crash Course, F.D. Signifier, Forrest Valkai, Bad Astra, CJ the X, and Overly Sarcastic Productions all make great informative stuff.
But you have to see the issue with your logic. You're basically arguing for egalitarian, but stagnant (or slow-developing) societies. Where everyone is the same, but the standard of living is lower and increases at a slow pace, if at all. That's not desirable - at least in my opinion; yours can differ, of course. But in my mind, it is much better to have a less equal society where everyone, including the bottom rung, is better off and can live a better life, than a fully equal society that lives in desolate, squalid conditions. After all, that's what your statement "erased by rivals" implies. The societies that were able to advance and develop more quickly are the ones that win out, after all. Now tell me: would you truly rather live in an unequal, but advanced society that has all of the amenities of the modern world (ranging from modern healthcare, to education, to the internet, to countless other things that make your life healthier, easier, and more fulfilling to live), or in a fully egalitarian, but undeveloped and primitive society where people still die in their 30s and have to live like animals, where even the best-off person is still poorer than the poorest person in the advanced society? I know that is an extreme example. But taken over a long time scale and complete isolation from one another (i.e. the more powerful rival can't conquer, influence, or "erase" the other), that's what would happen. One society would have equality but no development, and the other would have development but no equality. In the end, I will always pick development over equality. I'd rather live in a world where everyone has a nice life, even if the richest person has a million times as much as the poorest, than one where everyone suffers, but is equal in their suffering.
Please please please. I don't want to start an argument I'm just genuinely curious. Why shouldn't the tax rate be the same for everyone? Since it's a percentage the richer you are the more you pay right so why should the tax rate be higher if you're richer?
Well the problem with fixed tax rate is that for very poor people it would get to a point where you cannot pay the necessary expenses, if we put our tax rate to avoid the previous scenario then the tax rate would be really low and not enough money would be collected. In theory it could be like that and probably has existed in the past but it is not enough to diminish wealth inequality.
If you divided all the money and valuables in the world equally between all the people in the world, within less than 5 minutes, some people would be richer than others. It's an impossible task.
You, God and All scientists do not know that the concentration of Wealth in the hands of an Owner happens in two ways: 1) The free market, no matter how much it is regulated, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. 2) The exploitation of the Employee by the Owner, also, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. The only sustainable solution is perpetual redistribution of Wealth from places of Extreme concentration (regardless if private or public) to every citizen evenly. A Repeated Redistribution is the only way towards a more equal society because nobody can stop the exploitation at the work place and nobody can stop the concentration of Wealth by free trade. 1) To sustain a free market You must tax the extreme concentration of Wealth and then give it evenly to everybody , again and again, so that the market can have customers (i.e. humans with money to spend). 2) Do not let foreign entities extract profit from our markets. We must extract profits from their markets.
The level of the arguments posed by the narrator is appreciably awesome. One must ponder and try to get more knowledge in order to understand the concepts mentioned in this video. Best wishes for your voyage!
Here in the Philippines, many people are suffering from poverty due to lack of education, misguidance by their parents, and the use of illegal drugs. All these factors result in many crimes afterwards. Additionally, a bad governance is adding a chain to the lives of many Filipinos from local to national There is still corruption & manipulation. And I realized, it is the wrong attitude that makes us poor. Therefore, it is difficult to rise against inequality because people think differently.
I would have loved to see you touch on domestic versus international wealth inequality. And also the difference between income inequality and wealth inequality. I feel like those are the two main things that most people don’t understand.
With the WEF around, inequality is inevitable yes! They work to benefit big businesses, not to reduce the inequality gap..... Quite the opposite, they want to make it bigger. When was the last time a non billionaire got invited to one of their conferences?
Not everyone in the comments section is from the USA, but there is a strong truth that something which makes Americans different from much of the rest of the world is that they see themselves as displaced millionaires instead of the actual economic situation they are in. The "American dream" and that "one day my ship will come in" and get rich schemes and so forth - and you see a lot of that in the comments section. There are significantly more vacant homes in the USA than there are homeless to fill them. The USA trashes more food than it would take to feed the hungry (also a distribution/supply chain problem but still true). In a nation that claims to be capitalist, the only welfare that is supported is for corporations and banks who are "too big to fail" while everyone else has to play the game. Just one of the several bailouts and tax credits given since 20008 could have provided free college education and universal healthcare and provided a universal basic income to everyone (even cutting checks to bill gates - as in everyone). This has been discussed in detail several times over, but no. We have to help corruption institutions and support the military industrial complex instead of taking care of the citizens and supporting future generations.
You're just making a random generalization about what you think Americans are like. I've never met anyone that thinks they are displaced millionaires and I highly doubt most people feel that way. That's just ridiculous. Ask any normal person that 1 on 1 directly I guarantee you NO ONE will say they feel like a displaced millionaire or that they are following the "American dream" that's so silly and unrealistic.
I don't really care about your other points. It just sounds like a lot of buzz words and nitpicking flaws when there is a lot to appreciate in the country. But you act like the US does absolutely nothing to help its poor citizens when it actually does a ton. I grew up poor and I had almost free subsidized housing, food stamps, college completely paid for, and more. The US has PLENTY of welfare. A lot of which doesn't get factored in when calculating the wealth if the lower classes. Which yes their income might be lower but they also have lots of programs that help dramatically increase their quality of life that doesn't directly tie in to income. The US does A LOT for its poor. Also homelessness in Amerkca isn't at all a housing issue its a mental health issues our main issue is offering help for those dealing with addictions and mental issues. By far the biggest reason for prolonged homelessness. Homelessness in the US due to poverty is very small and is usually temporary ad there are lots of support systems out there for those who are willing to reach out for help and are obviously sane enough to work with.
@@geralferald Yeah things were pretty good for the poor before George W. Bush and the Great Recession. The good days are gone now. Now here in the 21st century, the smart poor people read and admire Karl Marx and the ones who don't like to read books above a 6th or 7th grade reading level or have deep conversations join the far right wing extremists and attack the Capitol. The poor are so much worse off nowadays that they've become extremists. It's a sight to behold!!!!
Indeed, that was very interesting video. In my humble opinion there is nothing wrong with moderate levels of economic inequality. Extreme economic inequality or full-blown equality are both harmful to the development of society. Perhaps it would be a little bit too moralistic, but I believe what we need is not only optimal and effective economic policy. We need to develop cultural traditions, which will instill in high-class people sense of moral duty towards society. If they have more privileges than the rest, they should also have more responsibility. It's an ancient idea, which was proposed by Confucius and Plato(Eastern and western philosophers).While it's an ancient idea, I think it's necessary foundation for our civilization, which we forgot and need to brought up again.
Absolutely right. There is a cultural narrative we tell in each country which affects this. In countries like UK and USA there is too much emphasis on celebrating the entrepreneur as if they are the pinnacle of humans and thus downplaying the fact that their riches come from the hard work of hundreds, or thousands, or millions of people around them whether they work in their companies, educated them at school, clean their streets, or looked after them when they were sick. Thus we tell ourselves a false narrative that they should not be heavily taxed or else they might stop being entrepreneurs. But I cannot believe that a entrepreneur would not be entrepreneurial if they could 'only' amass a wealth of £1billion rather than £2billion. I mean, even if they get taxed a billion pounds more they are still a billionaire with more money than they could possibly spend! We should change the narrative to say that those who have successfully created wealth were people who managed to extract the most value out of society and thus they are obliged to put more back into society in order to keep it a healthy society that can help them and their future generations stay healthy and successful. Taking value out of society and not giving some back is akin to being a vampire.
Well said. Veritasium's video "Is Success Luck or Hard Work?" made a really interesting about that. For me, he summarised really well how the mindset towards economic success all individuals should have to achieve what you described. So much so it became on of my guiding values.
EDIT: Apparently, the comment that this was replying to got deleted or hidden. To give context in case it isn't restored, it used to read: "The rich only serve themselves they have no moral duty towards society and they never will" The following was my answer to it. ----------------- Let's breakdown that sentence, shall we? By saying "the rich", it tells us that you assume that EVERY rich person that has ever existed and will ever exist suffer from that ailment. "and they never will" tells us that you assume that no person can ever change. "only serve themselves they have no moral duty towards society". To say this about someone is to consider them sociopathic. So, by that entire sentence, you're saying that not only the currently alive 62.5 million millionaires of the entire world, but all that existed and will exist (around 5 million people a year in the last 5 years) are unfixable sociopaths. Which also implies that, in your opinion, to be/become rich you either need to become sociopath or already be one. If we can find either one (1) single millionaire that does not fit your description or one (1) that managed to change the behaviours and thoughts in their life, your entire opinion falls flat. That's the price you pay for making such a bold statement without any kind of argumentation and good base behind it. It becomes extra brittle. I'm 100% willing to hear your opinion, but unless you don't stop parroting and talking based on emotion and start bringing some logic, facts and emotionally neutral observations to the table, your points will be completely ignored by any person that is willing to seriously discuss this topic. Source: Credit Suisse's 2022's Global Wealth Report
And one other point- inequality is not necessarily a bad in and of itself. A Gini index of 1, for example. is neither desirable nor productive- if you'd be paid the same amount for doing literally nothing as you would be paid for attending 12 years of rigorous education after high school to become a surgeon, we very likely wouldn't see many surgeons. This is an absolute extreme example, mind you, and by no means warrants the outright condemnation of welfarism that many people take this to imply. The main point is, per John Rawls, some level of inequality is acceptable, even desirable, because it creates incentives for people to do things that benefit everybody. Rawls argued, to oversimplify, that the well-ordered society would have exactly as much inequality as would be most beneficial to the worst-off. In other words, economic inequality is acceptable if it is a direct consequence of improving everybody's lives. This is not a condemnation of market systems or capitalism broadly either- prices play the roles of allocating scarce resources, but also of informing producers and consumers of how valued certain outputs are. Without that information, there is little way for anybody to know what could possibly be in the best interests of the public (even the USSR at its peak of Leninism relied on Western valuations of goods to assign production schedules). It's food for thought, to be sure. If you wanted a sweeping conclusion from all of this, I'd have to disappoint you- it's foolish to jump to broad conclusions with sweeping consequences with any amount of information. But there's so many contingencies and problems with all the mechanisms stated above that, if you are really interested in pursuing this line of thought further, I would implore you to pick up some light reading on the subject. The Socialist Calculation Debate and Market Centralization are good places to start, along with the question of "how well do current societies running on market economies actually reveal what things are worth?"
You, God and All scientists do not know that the concentration of Wealth in the hands of an Owner happens in two ways: 1) The free market, no matter how much it is regulated, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. 2) The exploitation of the Employee by the Owner, also, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. The only sustainable solution is perpetual redistribution of Wealth from places of Extreme concentration (regardless if private or public) to every citizen evenly. A Repeated Redistribution is the only way towards a more equal society because nobody can stop the exploitation at the work place and nobody can stop the concentration of Wealth by free trade. 1) To sustain a free market You must tax the extreme concentration of Wealth and then give it evenly to everybody , again and again, so that the market can have customers (i.e. humans with money to spend). 2) Do not let foreign entities extract profit from our markets. We must extract profits from their markets.
Inequality is everywhere. Should every landscape be filled with mountains? Should every animal and insect be an apex predator? It's not a matter of equality, but a matter of balance.
Why does one 'Have' to do this ? Serious question. We literally see in China that not doing this caused per capita income to more than 10x in a few decades (!!) Maybe having a MUCH higher per capita income, for everyone, is slightly more important than some silly gini number that the World Economic Forum does not like. Also, who determines what level of inequality is 'reasonable', is it reasonable to let some corrupt politicians decide how wealthy someone can become ? Why do we want to live in a society where meddlesome bureaucrats have so much say on how we live ? Do you really want some government agent coming into your home to take away your second car, because someone else has to take a bus to work ? To make everyone in the world equal, as the video refers to at the end, would require a MUCH lower standard of living for almost everyone in the west, besides the homeless...
@@sprinkle61 Compare the US to Scandinavia. The latter have better metrics when it comes to citizens being happy. It's a matter of balance. Redistribute too much wealth, and there is no incentive to work hard. Redistribute too little and the rich get too powerful and can abuse their position, like in the US. This happens in Scandinavia too, but not nearly to the same degree.
@@midimusicforever Its easier to be happy when you have a very homogeneous and cohesive society, and its easier to have more equality when a country isn't driving technological innovation and large scale wealth gains. Scandinavia has certain advantages that larger more innovative countries don't have, so its not an apples to apples comparison. Most countries that are small (in population) and rich enough have great quality of life, but lack the racial and poverty issues of larger and more diverse countries.
Don't forget this video was sponsored by the wealthiest 1% which is the WEF, the world's plutocracy. They want you to believe it is inevitable. After all, who would want to lose their billions.
Except I am generous, and I don't make s*** for money. Maybe that's my problem. Maybe if I was more greedy I can have all the accoutrements and political influence of the rich. Brilliant stuff
This is a central theme of the book Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow . The question keeps changing though, because they realize the faults in the question “what are the origins of inequality”. Power imbalances and the degree to which they are prominent in any culture depends on many factors of perceived cost and value. In some cases ~ material wealth is considered very burdening or ceremonial. Material wealth has also not always been a prerequisite for social power. We just now live in a world dominated by materialist economics and seem to prefer the social/political strength it provides.
Great reference 👍 you always have to keep things in perspective and realize that there are MANY viable ways to run a society. They’re all going to have inequality, but how that inequality shakes itself out is unique to each society.
Material wealth has been a prerequisite for social power since we became settled agrarians. Agrarian societies meant owning property == owning food == ultimate power over the lives of others.
@@agilemind6241 not quite true. This is what they talked about in the book. Plenty of societies have been “settled” but not “agrarian” and others with “land ownership” not implying absolute authority. There are many instances in which these various culture traits have been separated or blended.
"Power imbalances and the degree to which they are prominent in any culture depends on many factors of perceived cost and value." No. Power imbalances are a fundamental axiom of existence, and innately unavoidable; it has little to do with perception. For all organisms, across all domains (both natural & creative), the majority of rewards and/or resources are reaped by a minority of units. This is known as the Iron Law of Oligarchy. It started out as a socio-political phenomenon until it was noted that the pattern exists across all known forms of life & energy usage. No matter the context, a few will always take the majority of resources from the many. "Material wealth has also not always been a prerequisite for social power." It never has been, and is not today. What it *IS* today, is what it also has always been; a medium for power. It is & has never been a prerequisite, but simply another avenue for achieving it. You reek of Marxist ideologies and all of the ignorance towards power structures that such delusions entail.
the origins of inequality are simple to understand. Mesopotamians didn't have combine harvesters, nitrogen rich ammonia fertilizers, pvc piping or glass green houses. 5,000 years ago Ancient Near East agriculture techniques, such as human or ox powered labored plowing, were primitive compared to machinery that exist today, point is societies back then were in the minor leagues when it came to harvesting and plant science and so those ancient peoples had to ration, as population in 3rd millenium BC was larger then the sizes of lands dedicated to farmining, in other words the quanity of mouths to feed was larger than the small field sizes dedicated to farming, small because agricultural techniques back then was weren't advanced enough to allow neolithic farmers to use more land that would be often inundated by flooding and what arose from rationing ? Wages. People recieved rations of barley, wool and oil based on what labor they did. Every economic concept that exists today from price to trade to debt to rent to mortage to ownership came from farming
Love the animation! One question though, is the Soviet Union and Communist China really communism? Corruption was still rampant back then and communism should extend beyond just economics. Communism should extend into democracy as well, and those two examples clearly never did that. So in fact they were just dictatorship countries operating in the name of communism whenever it suits the interests of the leader, not the people. Today our healthcare system (no US sadly) is based on the idea of communism. Even the income tax that were mentioned in the video was based off of communism ideas. It's not like when you are a capitalistic economy you cannot have communism ideas as well. The two are interwolven and they both have their pros and cons.
This especially includes that people who need additional money (for example people with impairments need more resources than others) have the opportunity to participate in the social, cultural and political sphere of their environment.
Vid in collaboration with World Economic Forum made up of multibillion dollar for profit companies. That’s why its tone is defeatist’s “oh well” rather than “can it be reversed”. So it makes perfect sense why they used the tone they did.
The only thing that has raised people out of poverty is education and technological revolutions, technology distributes massive amounts of capital. These videos on inequality never go anywhere and are sponsored by governments that want more power and higher taxes... Going left wing or asking for more government control is dangerous, communism killed 60 million people out of starvation, soviets went to deep poverty and so did the Chinese when they applied those ideals. Work hard and build a fortune, so the government can take it all away with guns. Taxation is theft, not a meritocratic system. Buy crypto, get paid in crypto, and pay in crypto
inequality will be inevitable as long as human beings are different individuals with different skills, goals, needs and desires you can take the money of everyone in the world and spread it evenly, in 15 minutes you will already have inequality, some people will spend the money, some will save it, some will invest it, etc we cant avoid inequality, but we can avoid POVERTY, that problem has been diminished greatly by capitalism
That was fantastic but nope, because the capitalist don't make disappear the poverty, it's just transfer from this people to another people, and countries to countries, because we could make as much as money we want but can't make more source like oil, gold,...So countries and people have to compete, in good way it's will help our society and technich develop, in bad way it would lead us to war or exploited until we kill this planet
if YOUUUUUU aspire or desire to BECOME SUCCESSFUL, you are CREATING inequality. if YOUUUUUU aspire or desire to BECOME BEAUTIFUL, you are CREATING inequality. if YOUUUUUU aspire or desire to ACHIEVE **YOUR** GOALS, you are CREATING inequality. In a world where SOMEONE must be SUCCESSFUL . . . it is ABSOLUTELY 100% ****NECESSARRRRRY**** for OTHERS, especially those around her/him, and ideally LOTSSSSS of them (Tens of Thousands, Not just 20) . . . it is ABSOLUTELY 100% ****NECESSARRRRRY**** for these OTHER people . . . . **to BE POOR** or ***to BE UNSUCCESSFUL*** !!! It is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to become SUCCESSFUL, **without** others becoming UN-successful. Anyway dares to dispute/argue . . . be my guest.
I'd say we started this idea of possession we headed down a dark path. Money is the worst form of possession to me. The idea of currency is a great way to buy and sell goods and services but it should serve us, not the other way around.
IMHO. When I saw the country with relatively low gini index such as Japan and northern European country... based on how Gini Index calculated, i think one of the reason is the aging population. Less children (the unproductive one (economically)) the lower the ratio.
i think the issue with the idea of a meritocracy is that even if it truly WAS an accurate measure of merit -- it assumes that people without the "merit", be that due to health issues, disability, or just not being naturally the "best" or "smartest" at something, do not also deserve housing and food and quality of life despite a lack of merit. does one have to be exceptional to be human? aren't most people average? idk it's like survival of the fittest
In thermodynamics you need “inequality” or difference in energy potentials in order to do any work, a perfectly equal universe of all mass and energy being equally distributed there’s no potential energy, it’s the same thing with economies you need some inequality in order to get work done. The issue is how much inequality is the right amount and type (you want inequality to be based on hard work not something like birth), and also that number fluxes based on the context so it’s almost an impossible problem.
As an old student of Economics, I can confirm that this is the most accurate information about Relative Poverty and Inequality. Literally leaving no aspect of the topic.. I am from Pakistan and $1= 220 PKR right now. Pakistan is going through a deep recession right now along with massive inflation throughout the economy, including necessary products as well. Yet, our politicians usually countered this situation by the statement that we still have prices lower than the prices in US. But no one ever told them that poverty and affordability depend on both prices and incomes. I remember about 6 months ago I did a personal research all by myself about this. I extracted the average price of one dozen eggs and the per capita income of both countries. According to my research, an average US citizen can afford 23 dozen eggs in one meal. Whereas an average Pakistani citizen can afford only 7 eggs (not 7 dozen) in one meal. They'd better make me the Prime Minister 😅
@@caesar5588 yeah bro studying an Economy is so theoretical it enhances your explanation skills. I recommend every student or junior whether he is interested in Sciences, Commerce, Engineering or anything to study Economics
@@caesar5588 in the Soviet Union the lowest salary was 70 rubles per month for street sweepers while the highest salary was for the president, 800 rubles per month. and there is a wealth limit where 1 person can only have a maximum of 2 houses and 1 car
Good analysis. But what and how much u can buy is mostly a problem of your own national economic and political institutions. For a number reason ppl in US can buy more eggs than those in Pakistan.
@@newagain9964 Lol when did I say its not😅 Yes you're completely right that these things do depend on an Economy's handlers... But resources do have an impact. Like, for example, most of the countries in the Middle East have a really good economy and very strong exchange rate because of the presence of Oil. Others like US and China rely a lot on their massive areas which allow them to build big industrial areas and lots of farming lands. A number of reasons why Pakistan is not that good include low value addition products, major primary sector contribution, negative NX(Exports - Imports), corrupt tax system, high political instability, very percentage of dependent population, low incomes etc etc which ultimately contribute to low currency value and low GDP. I could talk a lot more about Economics but its a rather boring subject and when talking about a country which people are not interested in further makes this comment unattractive to most🤡
You’ll always have inequality. Some people are simply more talented, smarter, capable, productive than others. They will always do better, probably way better. Better than focus on inequality, why not teach the less equal how to do better with better skills, entrepreneurship, financial management, etc.
As someone who actually lived in and am familiar with a socialist country, idiocy like this video's "there was no economic inequality in USSR" is a big lie. Yes, if you measure in pure official money, the index is low. If you measure in actual quality of life, inequality was way higher than in USA
Anthropology gives us an insight. Primitive societies have very limited amounts of inequality. Most inequality we see in human civilization is caused by the advent of agriculture.
Holy cow, i was just thinking of this about 2 months ago. Societies toward inequality and the concentration of wealth at the top unless things are "shaken up" to make things more equal, typically by the government. Most people my age have been fed this very extreme capitalist ideology from a very young age. Hopefully as we get older and the more extreme it gets, more and more people see that this current system isnt working. Something needs to change. It either comes from the government finally doing something to equalize the situation, or a revolution happens to make it so.(obviously not preferred.) And so everyone understands, a more equal society is a society that is stronger. We are the UNITED States, the more people can engage in healthy way, the better we are off.
Yes, Inequality is inevitable, as human society revolves all day around Power. But, this doesn't give any government an excuse to not try to lift their citizens from poverty by giving them housing, education and healthcare.
There's no profit to be made from subsidized housing, education, healthcare or food. Which should all be human rights and not commodities to be profited from.
@@jimmytimmy3680 Exactly. I shouldn't have to pay for my food, healthcare or housing. Rather, others should be forced to provide it to me. How dare a landlord demand I pay him rent, take his property and give it to me. And the nerve of farmers?? Demanding we pay them for the food they grow? Excuse me, food is my right, so I shouldn't have to pay for it.
@@stansman5461 Wow, snarky. Have you considered Vienna’s government owned apartments? There is no profit motive, so the rent only has to pay for building maintenance, which results in much lower rents, typically about $300 per month. Also, due to the lower rents at government apartments, it pulls down the rental costs for privately owned apartments, making the cost of shelter cheaper for a large portion of the population. The notion that the government providing support is taking money out of your pocket is naive. You are going to pay for those people regardless. You can invest a bit of money early and have them grow up to be productive members of society, or you can wait and invest that money into police and incarceration to deal with the shitheads that are a direct result of growing up in poverty.
I'm Indian and you are saying $300 is a low rent is a huge shock to me. Because here you can have an individual house with a garden for that same amount. IDK why the cost of living is so high in Europe?.
OK, let us consider the negative impact wealth distribution has on society. When the state becomes Dad society suffers. I did contract work for several inner-city schools and the result of the family unit breakdown was both evident and stupefying. I do NOT resent wealthy people because I was raised in a relatively poor home. My old man had an allergy to the workplace. Well-intentioned social engineering (wealth distribution) brings with it a new set of unwanted manufactured problems. My brothers and I are now "retiring" comfortably because we learned what didn't work and we planned for retirement (managed our income). Citizens need to be engaged productively for many reasons.
Well, to be fair, although China said it changed towards communism, it really didn't. Most of these countries have a mixed political economic system, that is, they mix ideas of communism with capitalism. In fact most countries are like this.
@@j100j yes inexistence is the ultimate singularity ultimate EQUALITY which we all will go either by crying at our death ads or happy. So id say keep the show going as long as we can.
Now I wonder how moneyless societies would fit on the Gini scale since people didn't have "incomes" or "wages". They acquired and distributed resources collectively. Wouldn't that be "equality" in the economic sense?
I think a society needs inequality to an extend to develop itself faster. E.g. a vaccine developed in a rich country benefits also the poor countries in the long run.
1. Inequality is overrated. Some inequality is actually desirable. It is clear that people prefer to live in a better-off, less-equal country compared to a worse-off, more-equal country. 2. Heterogeneous preferences make it difficulty to establish a meaningful definition of equal “outcomes”, despite the efforts of materialist technocrats. 3. Access to education? It’s literally based on discriminating between top and bottom performers. 4. Access to Healthcare? No amount of access to healthcare will overcome individuals’ lifestyle choices. Expensive surgeries and drugs aren’t the solution to the plagues of prosperity.
