Why "Equality" is a Bigger Problem Than You Think

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nyarlathotep's picture
So when are you going to give

A dimensionally inconsistent simplification? Shame on you.
So when are you going to give us the function f? While you are at it, what are the dimensions of "Crash" and "Stability"?

Matt Wilson's picture
If you can't understand that

If you can't understand that stability is a problem then of course you can't understand why equality is a problem.

I'm not the first one to note that stability is a problem:

"Against those certitudes, Minsky, an owlish man with a shock of grey hair, developed his “financial-instability hypothesis”. It is an examination of how long stretches of prosperity sow the seeds of the next crisis, "

"a “Minsky moment” is now virtually synonymous with a financial crisis."

The Minsky Moment - https://is.gd/oHjuRF

This goes back to the snow avalanche model which I mentioned in my previous post and again below. The avalanche starts at the Minsky moment.

But that's the stock market, not real life. Really?

Compare a dictatorship to a messy democracy. The dictatorship often appears to be stable for a long time, then out of nowhere there is a revolution. Does that sound like Syria? Democracies have elections every couple of years and can usually avoid a revolution. Exceptions do not negate the general idea.

Let's look at a snow avalanche model. The snow builds up on a mountain over a long period of time. There is the appearance of stability during that entire period. Then the snow builds up too much and the mountain is ready to avalanche. It sits like that until one tiny thing starts the avalanche.

How could the death of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria start World War I?

How could the immolation of one guy start the Arab Spring? 26-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi was a fruit vendor who set himself of fire after his fruit cart was seized.

Both were ready to avalanche and only needed a tiny push. Causality is not linear: A big collapse does not need a big reason.

In the forest model, putting out fires brings the forest to the brink of catastrophe. It will remain there until the catastrophe happens - the huge fire (crash.)

Why has Japan's economy been stuck for about 30 years, and now most of West (economy) is stuck too?

They put out all the fires in the forest including the big one in order to promote stability. This left the forest (the economy) in a perpetually dangerous state.

The big crash would have cleared out many of the big problems plaguing society. The new problems created by the big crash would get sorted out over the next decade. The suppression allows a lot of the original problems to remain. Therefore, the economy will remain in a perpetually dangerous state until a big crash is allowed to happen.

What about the state of the international order? Over 70 years of stability has brought us where?

'“Is the world slouching toward a grave systemic crisis?” asked historian Philip Zelikow at the annual gathering of the Aspen Strategy Group earlier this month. Now that’s what I call a question!'

'Regardless of who is president of the United States, the crisis is coming. …'

'So yes: the world probably is slouching toward a grave systemic crisis. That crisis is already manifesting itself in mass online hysteria, rampant cyberwarfare, and accelerating nuclear proliferation. …'

The coming world crisis – The Boston Globe [Aug. 28, 2017] - https://is.gd/HXLsCm

Over 70 years of relative stability in the world (and the West) is not bringing more stability. Instead, it is bringing the opposite. How can that be?

CyberLN's picture
Matt, you said, "There is the

Matt, you said, "There is the appearance of stability during that entire period."

The *appearance* of stability is dramatically different than actual stability.

Pitar's picture
Equality, equilibrium,

Equality, equilibrium, stability, balance, etc, are fleeting occurrences in all societies wherever they occur. Whether it's social or economic there's always factors in conflict removing any long term expectation of equity in any of its contexts.

Think competition. That word and concept would not have been coined and implemented if equity was a constant. No one would need anything with regard to more of, or better than. All would be boringly stable in quality and availability. But, that doesn't satisfy the human endeavoring for more and better now does it? Think politics. No one would need to promote more or better leadership if neither were lacking. Think corporations. None would need to engage in marketing strategies if all had equal market shares. Think military industrial complex. It would be unnecessary if global stability was a naturally occurring condition of co-existence.

Also, placing a weight atop and pressure vessel does not create stability. It merely temporarily contains pressure as it exacerbates instability. All along the increasing differential pressure gradient stability never actually occurs. What does occur is a false sense of safety in ignorant people - like a religion does - through cognizant avoidance of essential truths.

Anyway, the natural human condition is to avoid peace, stability and harmony for the sake of the divisive egocentric class structuring of cultures. Conflict and the doling out of suffering and death have never deterred man from enjoying the pain of self-inflicted wounds and sorrow he considers fair value for reigning supreme over his fellow man. Stupid, yes, but that's where we get the expression "ignorant masses" from. It's a great expressive title for mankind so until he can prove otherwise it suits him.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.