Inequality

In Ronald Purser’s The mindfulness conspiracy (The Guardian), he writes about a fascinating perspective on the mindfulness genre. Here are my 6 takeaways from the article: Mindfulness says paying closer attention to the present resolves our suffering. Mindfulness has been stripped of the accompanying teachings e.g. attachment to self, compassion. Mindfulness advocates are unwittingly supporting the capitalistic monetisation of our attention which mindfulness purportedly solves. Mindfulness attempts to deal with the symptoms (lack of focused attention) without addressing the cause (monetisation of our attention). Mindfulness reframes troubles as the result of individual action rather than systemic conditions. Neoliberalism wants pure market logic and mindfulness says “okay, here’s how you can focus on competing so you don’t think too hard about the social and political conditions that brought about the suffering.” See also Neutralizing social Darwinism Mindfulness of emotions and feelings

Social Darwinism is the application of natural selection to sociology, economics and politics. Our society exhibits natural selection or survival of the fittest where “fit” is defined as things that give you access to more resources. While we may observe this in our society, most of us don’t want to live in a world where social Darwinism is allowed everywhere. For example, variations of social Darwinism have been used to justify some horrifying things e.g. Nazi Germany, Japanese Imperialism. ...

Better Public Schools Won’t Fix Income Inequality (The Atlantic) is one of those belief-altering articles that completely changed my thoughts around education. Here are 8 of Nick Hanauer’s most powerful points: Educationism is the idea that poverty and inequality can be solved with education. Education-reform ignores the greatest driver of student achievement: household income. Great public schools don’t create a thriving middle class, great public schools are a product of thriving middle class. Income inequality has exploded despite education progress. The lower the parent’s income, the lower the educational attainment. Educationists ignore the disease (economic inequality) and focus on the symptom (education inequality). Limited family income is difficult to overcome even for students that are naturally gifted. Pay the average worker more, and you will create a thriving middle class that addresses both economic and educational inequality. See also StackBacks automated budget system Is inequality inevitable? Stop collecting, and start producing

In G. William Domhoff’s piece Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power, he makes 8 compelling points that should make you wonder whether you truly understand where you stand in America: Wealth is the value of what you own while income is what you earn. Wealth is highly concentrated in just a few hands in the US. Wealth leads to power, and power leads to wealth. US is a power pyramid with the bottom 80-90% having no power. Tax cuts on capital gains and dividends benefits only the top Americans who get the majority of their income from capital gains and dividends. The US has both wealth and income highly concentrated. In the US, taxes and transfer payments reduce inequality but not much. CEOs generally get the salary they think they deserve. See also Neutralizing social Darwinism Is inequality inevitable?

In Jake Johnson’s Common Dreams piece Disturbing Milestone (Common Dreams), he details: The top 12 American billionaires now own more than $1 trillion in wealth. That’s a lot of economic and political power in the hands of just 12 people. Their combined wealth soared by $283 billion due to the coronavirus spread. While the top 12 are profiting, tens of millions of Americans are either unemployed or close to unemployed. While the top 12 likely obeyed US laws, it’s worth asking the question: ...

In Robert Reich’s piece There is no ‘right’ v ’left’ (The Guardian), he makes a very convincing argument about the relationship between the oligarchs vs. the right and left. The key points I found eye-opening are: In the past, the left wanted public investment and the right wanted free market. Oligarchs want Americans politically divided so we’re distracted from the real looting. Americans are actually divided between oligarchs and democracy. The oligarchs are pitting the right against the left. The oligarchs are stoking tribalism to distract. Opposing the oligarchs means bringing the right and the left together. See also Is inequality inevitable? What is the affine wealth model? Who rules America?

Key characteristics of the affine wealth model: The affine wealth model is agent-based i.e. each person or corporation is an agent. Wealth distribution arises from pairwise agent transactions e.g. agent A has a transaction with agent B. Wealth moves when an agent makes a mistake. The affine wealth model matches empirical data on US wealth distribution. chi stabilizes the wealth distribution and avoids oligarchy. zeta results in partial oligarchy. kappa shifts the wealth distribution downward to model debt. See also Is inequality inevitable?

Is Inequality Inevitable? (Scientific American) makes a compelling argument about wealth that I’ve always suspected but lacked support. The key ideas I took away from Bruce Boghosian’s article are: The affine wealth model reveals the tendency towards wealth concentration or extreme inequality even if the outcome of a transaction is chosen randomly. If the transaction outcome is random, then luck plays a bigger role in amassing wealth than most people think. Wealth tends to flow upward. As a result, the free market is essentially a casino you can never leave. Fortunately, redistribution sets a limit on inequality, but it’s not necessarily a tax (see chi, zeta and kappa parameters of the affine wealth model). See also StackBacks automated budget system Neutralizing social Darwinism Who rules America? Better schools won’t fix America