Wealth inequality is only as inevitable as the Pareto Principle. Does anyone know of examples where that has been successfully resisted for long? I imagine that it takes a great deal of sustained effort and invasive control.
> Wealth inequality is only as inevitable as the Pareto Principle.
In that case it’s not inevitable at all. The Pareto Principle is an observation, not an immutable law of the universe. Some things have an 80/20 split, others have different percentages, others still do not fit the principle.
I think that question betrays an assumption that somehow insane wealth accumulation is "natural" and anything else is not. Modern capitalism with all its rules and (often brutal) enforcement requires no less "effort and invasive control" that alternatives, it's just that the wealthy are writing the rules in their favor.
Eh? Don’t you think you’re mindlessly citing the Pareto Principle here as if it’s by itself a natural law that is necessary? I mean, I don’t even have to argue in favor of perfect wealth distribution—it’s simply possible to partition any resource along the lines of 60-40 or 40/40/20, it’s just a matter of initiative.
And yes, in the case of wealth distribution, public policy is a matter of initiative. That in itself a long discussion because there are many factors involved in policymaking and in what makes policies politically viable, but already, those are more interesting and thoughtful questions than just chalking it all up to “pArEtO pRiNcIpLe”.
1. reset the accumulation every 50 years or more often. The reset can be a war, a dictatorship, revolution, whatever. It's how Eastern Europe has low wealth inequality despite no systemic measures. It's not a stable solution (if you leave them alone they will accumulate capital and become oligarchy unless other measures are implemented). That's why EU Eastern Europe is different from non-EU Eastern Europe by the way - EU is a huge regulatory force preventing oligarchies from arising.
2. taxation + welfare system that redistributes enough wealth to prevent runaway feedback loops. See socialdemocratic Europe.
3. other regulations preventing non-monetary runaway loops (lobbying laws, antimonopoly rules, electoral system preventing influence from money into politics, trade unions, etc.)
4. economy focused on activities that are less suitable for wealth accumulation. This is not a binary switch, more like a spectrum going from hydrocarbons to service based economy. It's also not a long-term solution, it just speeds up or slows down the accumulation. Even in service-based economy you eventually get oligarchy if you have no regulation (see USA).
IMHO the obvious choice is combination of 2 and 3, the others are shortcuts that happen by accident and you can't depend on them.
BTW "invasive control" is a biased view. Unchecked unregulated capitalism is just as invasive if not more. The only difference is who is invasive towards whom. I prefer elected officials controlling my employers over unelected billionaires controlling their workers. Notice how in US it's common to have to explain to your boss why you want a day off. Like he owns you and it's his good will that you may be allowed to get sick or to rest.
In EU not only is this illegal - even if it would be legal - it would be a huge breach of etiquette for your employer to ask how exactly are you sick.
For someone from Europe it's USA that looks crazy invasive.
