If you had a choice between two hypothetical societies, one in which, let us say, everyone had 10,000 American dollars and no one had more or one in which most people had 10,000 dollars but there was a minority of millionaires, which would you prefer? Give this some thought. To me, this question represents the most fundamental dilemma in both economics and cultural problems. Now granted, the latter might seem like the obvious choice to many, but I am uncertain. I will go into my reservations in more detail if this thread progresses. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I will go with B because there is more money overall, but as long as the money still retains its value.
I like to think I'm beyond envy.

I thought of it from the act utilitarian perspective and also from the perspective of opportunity. Consider the social ramifications of the second society, however. Children are raised in a social class and so tend to be either spoiled or demoralized. The poor see themselves as poorer when surrounded by wealth. It is subjective and irrational, but any of us would feel the same were we poor. The existence of social classes result in unethical conduct, moreover, because those who see themselves as poor relative to others believe they have nothing to lose, while those who see themselves as wealthy relative to others see themselves as above so-called societal norms. It could be said that until there is economic equality, there will never be social equality. I have become depressingly right-wing on economics because I have been working on the assumption that inequality with the opportunity of wealth is better than equality without that opportunity. I am questioning something here that goes beyond economics. Is equality a greater imperative than the utilitarian goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number or even than the principle of maximin?

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." – Eleanor Roosevelt
The rich are rich because the poor allow them to be. When the gap is too great, heads will roll.
With opportunity of wealth comes incentive. Without incentive, where is the drive to excel?

Eleanor Roosevelt's quote is true regarding most purely emotional situations. However, in capitalism, the "inferiority" has quantifiable material reality. Communism failed, so the poor are more demoralized than they are angry. Finally, by "excel" you really mean "excel more than others".

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Society b- the rich ride on top of the stagecoach while the poor masses push it along a very bumpy road. No one is truly content because the poor struggle all day to make progress and the rich are in constant fear of falling off the stagecoach, yet this lack on content fuels everyone's desire for progress, so the stagecoach is always moving forward.

Society a- everyone is riding on top of the stagecoach, but no one is pushing it along. Everyone one is content because we all have an equal share of everything, but the stagecoach never moves forward.


Tough call, but I think I'll take b because at least then there is the hope of a better future. Of course, there is a variety of different ways of intrepreting this analogy. This is only mine.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

That is a good analogy. I don't want a cent in handouts, but I am thinking that economic hierarchy may be a tool of other forms of oppression. I'd go on, but I've bored you with enough of this populism already. You get the idea.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I'm going to attempt to blend my social egalitarianism with my fiscal libertarianism. The result should interest you if you happen to be extremely bored.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Equality any day just because it's fair.

What you say about people seeing themselves as poorer when surrounded by rich is true too though. Everyone's happiest with equality.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Suppose I work much harder than the others, and accomplish 3x as much. Should I get the same reward as lazy slacker? Is that fair?

The slacker is happy because I more than make up for his laziness, and he still gets the same pay. I wouldn’t be happy because I want to be rewarded for my labor instead of being weighed down. My advancement opportunities, assuming they still exist, would probably be limited because someone must pull his dead weight.

If I get rewarded for being more productive, then the lazy slacker wouldn’t be happy. He wouldn’t get as much money, and he might actually be forced to work.