People are always talking about how the rich are bad people because there are poor people in the US and they should be responsible for distributing the wealth. I think that it’s the failure in the system for letting it happen in the first place and it’s the government’s fault that this unfair distribution is continuing.
Rich people should not be liable to donate or give away their wealth voluntarily because whatever they earn after taxes they should use however they want to.
Besides environmental consequences, distribution of wealth created by energy is an important aspect of the social impact.
Oil is an energy source with high inequality. There are dictator countries (like Qatar and Saudi) and giant corporations that become super rich from mining and processing oil, lesser portion of the profit is given to oil workers, engineers and technicians.
Hydroelectric is much better in terms of wealth distribution. The land, reservoir, water source is usually owned or directly regulated by governments, the profits from operating hydroelectric is evenly shared among constituents in the area.
Right now, solar PV and wind considerably equal in wealth distribution. Salary of workers manufacturing, installing and maintaining solar/wind equipment and facility are the greatest expenditure of the industry.
Many redditors on this subreddit support nuclear power. Could you please talk about the profit distribution scheme of the nuclear power industry? How much do workers get, how much do corporations and shareholders get from design/building/operating nuclear power plants?
I have talked with exactly one anti nuclear politician in coastal California, she said she believes nuclear can be made safe, her main problem with nuclear is it does not create enough jobs for her unemployed and under employed constituents, who are mostly high school or GED, some of them not fluent in English.
Jobs created by a nuclear plant are mostly for STEM-major college graduates flyed in from over the country but hers. Solar and wind, as she said, creates many more locally appropriate "labor type" jobs than nuclear.
Equality cannot be solved through political means because it’s not at its core a political issue or even caused by politics or economics, it’s an issue much deeper on the levels of biology and psychology.
Inequality exist in our society regardless of economic or political systems, while inequality can become worst or better it’s always present and it will never ever be or will be at a level that we are satisfied with.
The problem is we see the unequal distribution of let’s say wealth as a political issue and analyse it using the wrong lens (a political lens) a hint that inequality isn’t an political issue Is price’s law. The majority of scientific papers are published by a very small group of scientists, a tiny proportion of musicians produces almost all of the recorded commercial music, just a handful of authors sell all the books, you can apply this principle of unequal distribution to every aspect of society as well as everything outside of our society to for example the mass of heavenly bodies which a very few hoard most of the matter, this seems to hint at unequal distribution is a natural state that exists outside of the political arena and until we understand this we will continue to make political, social and economic decisions on false and wrong assumptions.
In an anarchist society, how would wealth and resources be equally distributed among citizens? I'm probably missing something obvious as my understanding of anarchist philosophy is limited, so if you could answer I would very much appreciate it :)
The way i understand gini coefficient is that it measures wealth disparity, based on this im assuming that above average income people living in countries with high gini coefficients enjoy a really nice lifestyle, therefore wouldnt it be better to live in a country with a high gini coefficient if you fall into the above average income range?
I am basically trying to find reasons why BTC is so heavily adopted as opposed to BCH by looking at data.
There is a huge discussion on why a coin like BCH (which would be better for everyday use with lower fees) is not as heavily adopted as BTC (notorious for higher fees and smaller block size).
I did some research and found these numbers for BTC:
- Wealth distribution Top 10/100/1,000/10,000 addresses: 4.74% / 13.59% / 33.21% / 58.24% Total
- Market cap: $715,601,363,397 USD
- Hashrate: 169.574 Ehash/s
Now compare BCH:
- Wealth distribution Top 10/100/1,000/10,000 addresses: 11.49% / 32.23% / 52.45% / 71.24% Total
- Market cap: $8,249,567,210 USD
- Hashrate: 1.706 Ehash/s
If we look at these numbers we see that BTC has vastly superior security. Why? Considered a staple, huge market cap and hashrate comparably, and wealth is more even distributed. The current cryptocurrency market heavily favors security over usability. Even then, we are in the very early adoption phase. Why can't we have BTC as a store of value and BCH as a useable currency for the future? Can they not co-exist?
I think the more evenly distribution of wealth is the important thing. If a few people have the most power it is never a good thing (leads to easier manipulation).
Thoughts?
