| Kasz216 said: So it is a hypothetical then. I don't get the point of bringing up extreme outliers as hypotheticals. More often then not, when the rich are getting richer, it boosts the economy for everybody. I mean, may as well ask if giving food away for free is good. Then pointing out a case where a person died of a peanut allergy because the food was prepared near peanuts. You can find hypotehticals where ANYTHING is bad. |
It was asking about what happens normally in economies that are unregulated, if the effect is a good thing or not. If you want to discuss outliers, then you would argue the outliers that you want to discuss are negative outliers. You have said it is a good thing, based on what you wrote there, and that everyone benefits from the compounding effect of advantages. Either that, or you say the effect doesn't exist at all. You apparently think, on the whole, it is a good thing. I would ask you why this separation is a good thing.
Here is the original post:
In life, with economic systems, and other parts, also seen in games, there is something called "the rich getting richer". In this, individuals who have an advantage, are able to compound this advantage and use the compounding effect to offset weaknesses. This can lead to an exponential expansion of separation between those who have and those who have not.
My question is this: Is the "rich getting richer" effect a problem? Is it healthy for a system to end up resulting in a few individuals on top with dominance, while many below who aren't as fortunate, and could end up falling further behind, as rather than compounding advantages witness a compounding of problems and a chain of events that could cause them to even suffer a shortness of life?
If it isn't health to allow this to be left unchecked, then what can be done that would be a way to balance things out more?
I wil say, often in games, where this happens, it is a problem that makes a game less fun to play.
