: In each case a person can perceive this, but the inequality is relative as you have said, and presumably thats what matters. When in an imagenary future the poorest people have the equivalent to the richest now this kind of 'inequality' will still exist, as will the inequality borne in good looks, height etc etc
We are not responsible for equality of looks or hieght, we are for wealth, because wealth equals power, and without equality of wealth, we cannot have true freedom. Further, equality doesn't mean sameness, irt means a potential to have the same, and it means removal of exclusion and class divisions based on wealth differentials.
I wouldn't want to have the exact same house as my nieghbour, but I'd want to be able to have the similar features- double glazing, insulation, pretty wall-flowers.
: With that as the driving issue there can never be any rest until the leaders in the field of wealth are stopped, presumable with either the goal of letting other catch up, or more ominously of bringing them down.
the Levellers aren't dead. And remember, the ones as make the wealth, are the ones as have the least, so its just re-imbursing teh wealth creators.
:Such equality I find to be in fantasy land, I prefer to consider peoples position against themselves (ie are you better off now) or against meaningful averages like longevity. Other wise you are forever chasing someones tail, should they for even an instance step out of line and have a little more of something than their neighbour.
Well, capitalism, certainly in East Asia, has brought about a distinct decline of living standards, going from Msay, Mexican peasant life to the Slums of Mexico city is not exactly a move forwards.
: But we can and do produce 'more wealth per dollar' in the form of technological progress, hence the crisis is constantly out of reach, except for little peeks of it in stagnant industries.
Aha, well, atm the motor industry is in crisis, which owuld have knock-on effects to quite a few key related industries, banks would start to call in loans and look flighty, and suddenly teh whole system looks shaky.
Also, we move here into 'decline in the rate of profit' territory. where once we could have spent £1 million to make £2million, today we'd spend £10million to make £12million, because technological costs, etc. and fixed capital spending have risen. If one caompares the g7 Rates of proffit in the 60's with their rates of profit (beign the ration fo money invested to total profit) you'll see a distinct drop. The graph's in Robert bremner's psecial issue of the New Left Review, can't remeber the number. Again, we are heading for stagnancy, until a big crisis breaks, teh air is cleared, and growth can resume.
: There may be no feelings involved. Someone may create more wealth by being better at some things, this does not disadvantage the rest of the population. The opposite infact (as explained above). The more welath is good, applies as a universal. My extra $10 is good, Mr Billionaires extra $100,000 is good. Neither lost.
Except that no one can create a million dollars, no one can earn that much, if capitalists were paid wages, they would recieve much the same as the rest of us, that they do not, is simply down to their owning wealth, not creating it. Thats what the workers do...
: Hence sales of machinery and tools to other nations. It might annoy a tractor company to find that other companies have sold the machinery to mine resources and make tractors to a country, but it happens. Observe SE Asia.
Yes, it happens, though its unlikely in much of Africa so long as the debt problem isn't sorted.
: The only issue for me, in the above, is not that I get $10 and that BillionBoy gets $10million, the only concern is that MrPoor gets $0 regardless of cake increases. How to get MrPoor into the cake without curtailing cake growth (and robbing current cakeowners) is a more challenging question. Even though Ive just made it sound like a side comment in a bakery!
Well, conmsiering for the cake to exist Mr. poor cannot have a slice, emans we should try and find a different receipe.