|
Kasz216 said: But there are more goods produced in the last 20 years then there has in the entire history of mankind before that.To suggest that as much money and wealth exist today, as 100 years from now is ludicrious.When rich people talk about a $100 that wouldn't exist otherwise, they mean that competition has created that $100 by increasing the amount of goods, standard of living and just general stuff that exists. |
To compare right now to the past is meaningless, in the little social experiment the OP has brought up. Sure, relative to 20 or 100 years ago, we have more wealth, goods, etc. A lot more people can eat, have shelter, etc. than 100 years ago. But relative to right now, it's still finite. There are "only so many goods" and "only so many resources" right now. Resources will never exceed our wants and needs (scarcity). And because of that, we have to compete for them. And since those resources are limited, at some point, the fact that I was able to obtain said resource results in someone else not being able to obtain it. If I have something (1) and another person doesn't (0), well, 1 does not equal 0. If we aren't equal then we are unequal.
edit: and please don't take this as me wanting there to be perfect economic equality. I don't think we should. It's good to have income inequality. If you work hard, become skilled, and work a difficult job, you should be compensated more than someone mopping floors. Is the income gap in the US large? Yes, and I would like it to shrink because it's ridiculous, but at the same time, we shouldn't all make the same amount of money either. I'm just defending my point that economic equality doesn't exist in capitalism.
