Comment by tancop
5 hours ago
the utility of wealth is not linear. a billionaire getting $100 probably has no use for it and they wont notice either way. but a homeless person getting $100 makes a big difference for them no matter if they use it to buy new clothes and apply for a job or spend it all on liquor. redistribution is actually good by itself because it maximizes the total wellbeing of society.
all the negative effects on economic output come from the fact that there is always some minimum amount of capital you need to start a successful business in each industry, and if nobody has enough wealth to match that requirement the business has no way to take off. but that argument only works if crowd funding or state investment are not practical, which is mostly true in our economic system but its not a law of nature.
we dont have to go all in on soviet style five year plans. in fact we know its one of the worst possible systems because the real world is unpredictable and large scale inflexible plans usually fail. its not always a disaster but its always unstable. but neoliberal capitalism is not the only form of a non-command economy.
"there is no alternative" only makes sense if you ignore all the things in between and outside to create a false binary. there is also tito style market socialism, decentralized commune systems, continuous planning, hybrid systems like china and vietnam, capitalism with worker ownership, and a lot of others i dont even know. not all of them are practical (like anarchy) but the ideas already exist and i think its worth it to try and make them real. a better world is possible as long as ours is not perfect.
Marginal utility tends to diminish as you consume more of a good, but you can't compare utility between individuals. Utility is ordinal, has no common scale and is subjective. It doesn't make sense to try and claim that redistribution will always maximize the total wellbeing of society.
I agree: there is no precise, objective way to compare the utility of two arbitrary wealth distributions, and redistribution does not always maximize the total well-being of society.
Yet I assert it's useful to ask if the status quo—one person has >$1T and many others don't have enough for basic needs like shelter, medicine, and food—is optimal or if it'd be better to redistribute some of this.
* We don't need the ability to quantify or rank all wealth distributions, just compare some of immediate relevance. That's much easier, in the same way that even though the halting problem is undecidable, we can prove some realistic program A will halt and some realistic program B will not.
* We don't need objectivity. Democracies decide many subjective things by majority vote (sometimes 2/3rds or whatever), directly or through representatives. I don't always agree with the outcome, but it's the system we have here in the US/California, and I assert it's better than a dictatorship or requiring 100% consensus to take any action.