Is wealth inequality a feature or a bug of Capitalism?

Question

According to most conservatives, it is a well-known and desirable feature since some people are deemed more "deserving" than others.

I think it is a bug, and a serious one. In France, people dealt with this bug with guillotines. In Cuba, they dealt with it with an armed revolution. In the US, people originally dealt with it with another earlier armed revolution in 1776.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Neither. We no longer live in a capitalist society, we live in an Oligarchy. Which is wealthy individuals and families controlling and funneling the wealth of the country up.

In a capitalist society the average person is able to though their own hard work and enterprise prosper, this hasn't been the case for some time.

What happens is liberal elites come up with various "socialist" policies that end up costing ordinary tax payer which results in various tax hikes, job loses, low wages, rising rents and house prices.

A good example is a little coastal town my wife is from. Loved town and the towns people over generations built it up and made it a real nice place to live. Then liberal elites decided it was a good place to vacation in the summer and started buying up properties. Started getting in well with state and local authorities who decide to raise local taxes to the point some homeowners had to sell up and of course who came a long and bought those homes when they were forced to sell.

Another good example is Obamacare. Sure some of the lowest earners got healthcare but it was one of the biggest heists in US history. Healthcare prices went up, health insurance went up, the price of medication went up and taxpayers had no choice but to pay to a company with no other option to shop around.

Another is the Californian water heist. A group of water companies basically were given leave to write Californian state water policy. At a time when California was going through a massive drought agricultural productivity was through the roof. When the Californian State water board needed more water they had to ask these water companies to sell the water back to them and of course at double and triple the what they bought it for and this water was sitting in Californian reservoirs it's not like they had to pump it out. Then there is these companies going to towns that depend on underground Wells for their water supply and they decide to start a vineyard and they drill down to the water table and empty the water out so then townspeople have no water.

It's a complete Oligarchy.

MrKinktastic · Accepted Answer

It’s not specific to capitalism, wealth equality happens in every economic system including tribal cultures as soon as wealth (or other forms of social power) can be accumulated.

In communist regimes it’s those closest to the party core/elite that benefit, in capitalism with a functioning free market it is those providing the most valuable services to society. In tribal cultures you’d want to look at ones with controllable wealth like cattle, salmon runs etc.

It’s called Parietti’s principle and explains why most of space is empty except for large conglomerations of matter like planets, stars and black holes. Those that begin accumulating a given resource will eventually accumulate a disproportionate amount of the local resources due to this principle. Basically it’s because of the exponential growth curve causing an early advantage to lead to a massive lead in a relatively short period of time.

In our society today most of us run on a fiat based economy with a somewhat free market (there are some tariffs and other anti-free market policies in place though). So those closest to debt creation (the federal reserve followed by the banks followed by those with good credit) benefit the most as they get to spend new money/wealth before it impacts inflation and the rest of us have to pay with inflated/devalued currency.

Every time debt, aka new money, is created it steals from the value of the existing currency so is effectively stealing from retirees savings, employee salaries and fixed income individuals like the elderly and those on disability.

So to fix the wealth inequality you basically end up having to create an even bigger monster that is capable of confiscating the property of any of its citizens, no matter how well protected. Historically this has lead to a centralization of power and the worst atrocities in human history. Never forget that Mao and Stalin killed 2-4x more people through mismanagement and punitive shifts to the food supply than Hitler did through deliberate genocide campaigns.

purplepoppy · Accepted Answer

Wealth inequality is greater now than it was during the French Revolution. The problem is we've all been brainwashed into accepting it because asking for a fairer deal is communism.
As for more deserving there doesn't seem to be much correlation between income and usefulness or skill level

DermalPunch · Accepted Answer

I didn't vote. Wealth inequality is a feature of human existence. Greed as virtue has become a feature of capitalism.

RealMarek · Answer

Either/or. The mainstream conservatives, like the progressive idealists, for the most part believe in myths. They just have different sets of myths. One of these is that we live in some sort of libertarian utopia in which hard work pays off. For the boomers, this was largely the case. Not so much anymore. They believe less government is best, and would result in some sort of economic boom. However, the libertarian approach to markets only works in a high-trust, stable, well ordered society. Ours is increasingly low-trust, unstable, and disordered. This is not fixed without the firm hand of a competent elite wielding state power.

There will never be a utopian society that is purely capitalist, socialist, or anything else. The nature of currency used has an effect on this too. Regardless of formal economic system, an elite can influence the distribution of wealth, although fiat currency gives the elites more control than hard currency. It is possible for elites to hoard large portions of a society’s wealth to themselves as long as they allow upward mobility for the most capable people in society. Popular action never succeeds without an elite group to organize it. Our globalist neoliberal elites (may they be cleared out) are hoarding ever greater shares of wealth to themselves, but they are no longer hiring and promoting primarily for competence, with DEI goals (rewarding client groups) and nepotism (protecting children of elites) being the primary drivers. This will invariably set up a scenario in which a dispossessed counter-elite can turn to a dispossessed population to clear out the current elites.

DarkWinterNights · Answer

I don’t think in practice there is any avoiding wealth inequality entirely. I do think capitalism in America got us as close as we’ve ever been as a spciety. But I think what we have now is a mix of all the bad aspects of both capitalism and socialism and none of the good.

molonski2 · Answer

Its Neither.

True capitalism , in its purest sense , works better than any other system , it may not be perfect , but its the best system available. Socialist ideals never help anyone in the long run , Warren Buffet uses the example of the USA v Europe over the longer term and he has a great point , Europe in general could have been a far greater powerhouse.

The USA is still a place of massive opportunity and that's because of the freest markets worldwide.

As I said nothing is perfect , and certainly one of the negatives is the great wealth held in general by just a few families , unlike Buffet who will give the vast majority of the 90 billion away , yep 90 billion - give away , thats free enterprise , and thats the great thing about the USA.

Cubus · Answer

Feature. Just like in other economical systems

In socialism it works similarly, only the proportions are different. You have 99% of population that is, indeed, equal, but not equaly rich, but equaly poor. And then you have 1% of population (usually members of the ruling party) who are super rich. In capitalism inequality also exists, but there are more people in "rich" group (for example in USA 10% of population are millionaires), there are less people in "poor" group and (contrary to socialism) there are some people in the middle.

Grond21 · Answer

It is a bug of every single economic system ever invented or conceived of. It is a feature of any system where the individuals have any differentiating factor whatsoever.

The only place where this isn't true is in the Socialist or Communist utopias. But they, by definition, are impossible

disgustingweebtrash · Answer

It is neither. Inequality is a feature of humanity. Why do you think capitalism developed in the way it did?

In the past, I take a ship and go to India for spices and then sell them in Britain.. I capitalized on something and made a profit, modern capitalism is about capitalizing on ideas, which we are running out of.

provokeesmokee · Answer

Capitalism is inherently built to be unsustainable. Inequality isn't just possible under capitalism, it's the end goal.

RavVid · Answer

There will be inequality of wealth due to intelligence due to drive due to a myriad of personal qualities. It is not so much a bug or a feature but the essence of capitalism.

If you have a marxist system where everybody got equal wealth the the obvious thing to do to maximize your quality of life is to work less. we can all see where that spirals to. As the Russsian joke went "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work".

So where is your problem?

Sargentcaptain · Answer

It's a feature and it's a damn good one too. Capitalism is just meritocracy. There are naturally people who are worth a lot more to mankind, therefore they make more, and people who are easily replaceable, so they make less. Why should a janitor and Nikola Tesla be paid the same?

normalice · Answer

Wealth I equality is a feature. Our awareness of it is the bug. Which is why right wing billionaires bought all the media and are now turning their attention to the schools.

Snakeyes7 · Answer

Capitalism is all just the ability to own property so if anything it does a better job at lifting people out of poverty than the lack of property rights where everyone is equally poor.

Anonymous · Answer

It's a bug. No one is more deserving of anything. The fact that you were born into a wealthy family doesn't mean you deserve it you're just lucky

noohair · Answer

The US government has distorted out economy that I believe that it does not function like a capitialist economy should.

Jamie05rhs · Answer

It really depends on your perspective. For the exploiters, it's certainly a very useful feature.

Grovermint · Answer

It's been with humans since the beginning of civilization. Someone always screws over someone else. Look at monarchies they're no different.

Is wealth inequality a feature or a bug of Capitalism?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said