Puny humans disappoint me intellectually as I do them socially. They despair, I despair.
Mickey says we’ll be hearing a lot about “income inequality” in the months to come. No doubt he’s right. Because people are morons.
Income inequality is very important. It’s vital that the disparity between the richest and the poorest keep widening. If it’s not, you’ve got serious economic problems.
This is not socially acceptable. And Linda will shovel me some crap if she sees this post. But then, she’s compassionate. I’m merely rational.
Fortunately I know how to deal with the compassionate. As long as they’re Christians, anyway. Scripturize ’em! So when Jesus says…
“The poor will be with you always.”
…I believe Him. How ’bout you, Linda sweetie? You got a social program smarter than the Son of God Almighty?
There’s no way to bring everyone out of poverty without enslaving many. Because those folks will piss away resources instantaneously upon receiving them. Sex, drugs, lottery tickets, whatever.
That’s why I’m eager to sound like a heartless bastard. The baseline for wealth is zero. Always has been, always will be. Yes, yes, in accounting one can have less than zero, but come on. Try and collect negative dollars if the debtor doesn’t cooperate. So, zero. That’s what the poor have. That’s what they had. And it’s their net worth in all socialist utopias. Zero, zilch, nada.
So at least in the U.S., more income inequality is better. It means well-off Americans are becoming well-offier. Which means more giving, more charity, more good works.
More moments in which the zero poor are given two things. Resources, which are immediately pissed away. But also, opportunities…which on rare occasion aren’t. The opportunity for realization and redemption.
And the more income inequality, the more of those moments we have. That’s why I’m pleased when the rich get richer. The poor can’t get any poorer!
And more is better than less.
World's Only Rational Man 
Well said. As middle/higher class gains wealth, opportunities are created; help the poor realize those opportunities, some will break free and rise above the zero level. If you try to bring the entire lot of the forward by some artificial redistribution, you just pull the middle/higher classes downward.
Yep. You’ve got to lop off the trailing edge of the Bell Curve. That happens when an impoverished person bottoms out, is charitably helped, then sees the light.
Anything eventful happen in St. Croix? (NOTE–fun and sun isn’t eventful. That’s just rubbing it in.)
Whenever a concerned prog raises an issue like this (such as the very common “The top 1% earn 20% of the income” or some other rubbish), I just point to the tax burden of the top several percent, that’s real inequality.
p.s. stop picking on NOoAI 😉
Wormy! You callin’ me out? Seriously?
Well.
You’re right, I am compassionate. But I’m still rational too! That’s right, you can be both. If you recognize the rational limits of compassion.
I used to help a few downtrodden folks who were in legal trouble, back in the day. While doing this, I noticed something important. Some people grabbed that out-reached hand, and used it to pull themselves up. Others didn’t. It was too hard, or I didn’t grip hard enough, or whatever.
You can’t stop everyone from being poor. Some people, you could give them every penny in your account–they could win the blumin’ lottery, and still they would sink in the mire.
They only ones you can really help, are the ones that are willing to help themselves.
The real debate starts when we try to figure out which is which.
I suppose this comment
https://wormme.com/2010/12/14/a-rare-occasion-where-i-disagree-with-insty/#comment-1262
made me sound squishy, but you read me wrong, dude. My eye was on compromise with the inevitable squishes that fall for sob stories about the very poorest people. I’m not actually one of them; I just rationally assume that squishes will exist in any given society.
The way I figure it, rational types should have no problem throwing this bone to the squishy types, via a universal deduction of virtually any size, as long as it applies regardless of total income, ie, even the evil rich benefit.
Sort of a win-win thing.
Rationally compassionate, Wormy, I’m rationally compassionate. Nanny nanny boo boo.
If you were really compassionate you wouldn’t nannynannybooboo me and give me an ouchie.
I was remembering that very comment in choosing as an example. But it wasn’t meant to imply there’s anything irrational or unreasonable about your position! The single rate/universal deduction model is perfectly fair no matter where you set the rate and deduction. And so you rationally chose the higher deduction in support of compassion.
Rereading this post, I see I didn’t differentiate between you and the “income inequality” whiners Kaus cites. Believe me, I never lump you in with them!
I apologize for the lousy writing that made it seem I did.
Don’t you dare apologize, there is no need for it! You called yourself rational, and me compassionate. That does not equate into you being cold, and me being irrational. No harm, no foul.
Plus, you can’t take back your challenge about coming up with a better social program than God’s. Cuz I schooled ya on that one, buddy.
BOO-yah!
Actually, I thought I was asking you if you had something better than God’s plan.
Ann Coulter’s latest column points out that God wants charity done with “a cheerful heart”. Progressives not only do “charity” with other people’s money, they’re downright bitter about it.
yeah actually my last comment didn’t make much sense. the request for my opinion in the body of a post was a new experience for me, and made me strangely confrontational.
boo-yah!
I mean, cheers mate
Pingback: How to increase wealth inequality. | World's Only Rational Man
Pingback: Uh oh, income inequality is narrowing. | World's Only Rational Man