Elon Musk can waste 100 trillion dollars on that Mars colony that's never gonna happen, I don't really care about that. I just want to be able to earn enough money so that not all of them go on my rent, bills and taxes.
@@freedomofspeech2867 I understand I gotta pay taxes. It's just that in my country, middle class and lower class people have to pay really high taxes too.
literally just did a study on this and theres a 90% correlation between gini index and relative poverty. It's not about inequality so much as it's about getting people out of relative poverty. The best ways are with things like free education and healthcare as they actually mean the government has to collect less tax in the long run. People keep mistaking the idea that unequal income distribution isn't fair when in fact all we need is for no-one to be stuck at the very bottom of society. (Note, this probably means taxing the wealthy more temporarily but would result in long-run decreases in tax on them as governments have less requirement for income transfers - because people can actually earn a living wage!)
I guess it's more of a 'trying to curb inequality as much as possible' instead of a 'getting rid of inequality' kinda situation. Getting rid of it seems unrealistic.
It seems unnrealistic because this video was funded by the rich 1%, the WEF represents the world plutocracy. They want you to believe it is not possible. It is extremely difficult since the rich own all the world's politicians, but it is not impossible to change the syste.
I think there's a misunderstanding of equality here. They're using it as everyone's outcome should be equal. Equal wage etc. But was it fair? As in was the opportunity there etc? Is it okay to tax someone a higher percentage because they're more successful? 🤔 Is it morally okay?
Some "inequality" is OK, as long as the bottom group can survive comfortably and the top group re-invest and become good employers. Sadly that is not happening in too many places, causing misery for many.
I'd argue that some inequality isn't just ok, it's necessary. After all, nobody is making any money unless they have a job, and no one can have a job if there's no one to pay them for their work. The issue is being the employer comes with responsibility, and many employers have gotten so far from their employees that there's basically no consequences for failing that responsibility.
I also think that there are inevitable issues with the idea of education being fundamental in lowering inequality. I say this because, as we’re seeing now, we have a massive overly-educated undereducated group of people in the workforce. Most jobs don’t require a 4 year degree. And unfortunately out of the fear of someone being “unequal” we push them through universities even if they aren’t actually worthy of the degree (in terms of actual learning vs Cs get degrees). It reminds me of the Vietnamese War where America marked success with body counts. Thus discretion on who’s actually an enemy and who’s a non combatant led to an angry distrustful local populace. It’s important to consider the real world consequences of using one or two standards to mark the success of very complex situations
@@TheGregamonster if everyone in the US is paid equally, everyone would make $147,000 per year (US GDP/Working population). everyone will be living comfortably, and no one would have money problems. The only thing preventing that from happening is greed.
@@beamboy14526 if everyone in the US is paid equally, then no one has any incentive to to the jobs that are hard or unpleasant when they could just be doing nothing instead and get paid the same, and then society collapses. Just because we have enough money for everyone to live comfortably doesn't mean we can afford to give it to everyone regardless of how much or little they contribute.
@@TheGregamonster This one bothers me the most of all the arguments. We already KNOW that the jobs which are brutal and dangerous don't pay ANYTHING close to jobs that anyone would be cool with doing. We also found out that even when faced with ZERO PEOPLE APPLYING, businesses will not raise wages. Which actually proves that wages aren't tied to a supply/demand model either. In reality wages are based ENTIRELY off of the minimum a business has been able to offer a particular job for. A minimum which they will try to stick to for decades until their competitors are offering too much for that minimum to work anymore. In fact we KNOW this is the case as the only reason we have 8 hour work weeks is because Henry Ford offered it to steal all of his competitions skilled labor and it was impossible as a business to compete with that. So really the only thing that changes what people are paid for a job is how much of an impact that wage makes in the competitive market for labor.
Inequality is less important than what the lowest rung of society has. We should strive to raise the floor of society so that everyone's needs are met. We have the means.
@@freesk8 And yet the free market has screwed many people especially in sectors like housing and healthcare. When there will always be a demand for something, they will be able to do whatever they however they want. Government regulations are still important in keeping a free market stable and free from abuse. Essential things like healthcare should be kept in check to make sure things like price-gouging not exist. Both free market and government regulations are important and should work together so that a better economy and society is created.
Shut up. These people are funded by the rich. They don't care about poverty and inequality. They just care about making us feel better about being poor.
@@XOPOIIIO So just to be clear, are you saying that if someone can't earn enough money to live, like for example because they are paraplegic, then they should just die? If it's not what you are saying, then please add some nuance to your discourse.
@@Tamizushi I said "equal responsibilities" not "no responsibilities". I also don't understand the idea to help paraplegic from the money you stole, instead of your own.
Amazing video as usual. I just have to point out that the world economic forum is funded by billion-dollar industries that actually work against the same principles detailed in this video.
Shut up. These people are funded by the rich. They don't care about poverty and inequality. They just care about making us feel better about being poor.
I REALLY LOVE THIS NEW STYLE YOU GUYS ARE TRYING. I love the characters. They're so full of emotion, they literally feel like human beings and that's what makes this video so wholesome. I actually enjoyed this video whilst learning about something new
@@InspirationPurpose in the Soviet Union the lowest salary was 70 rubles per month for street sweepers while the highest salary was for the president, 800 rubles per month. and there is a wealth limit where 1 person can only have a maximum of 2 houses and 1 car
I would have loved to see you touch on domestic versus international wealth inequality. And also the difference between income inequality and wealth inequality. I feel like those are the two main things that most people don’t understand.
The level of the arguments posed by the narrator is appreciably awesome. One must ponder and try to get more knowledge in order to understand the concepts mentioned in this video. Best wishes for your voyage!
Here in the Philippines, many people are suffering from poverty due to lack of education, misguidance by their parents, and the use of illegal drugs. All these factors result in many crimes afterwards. Additionally, a bad governance is adding a chain to the lives of many Filipinos from local to national There is still corruption & manipulation. And I realized, it is the wrong attitude that makes us poor. Therefore, it is difficult to rise against inequality because people think differently.
Anthropology gives us an insight. Primitive societies have very limited amounts of inequality. Most inequality we see in human civilization is caused by the advent of agriculture.
If you divided all the money and valuables in the world equally between all the people in the world, within less than 5 minutes, some people would be richer than others. It's an impossible task.
You, God and All scientists do not know that the concentration of Wealth in the hands of an Owner happens in two ways: 1) The free market, no matter how much it is regulated, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. 2) The exploitation of the Employee by the Owner, also, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. The only sustainable solution is perpetual redistribution of Wealth from places of Extreme concentration (regardless if private or public) to every citizen evenly. A Repeated Redistribution is the only way towards a more equal society because nobody can stop the exploitation at the work place and nobody can stop the concentration of Wealth by free trade. 1) To sustain a free market You must tax the extreme concentration of Wealth and then give it evenly to everybody , again and again, so that the market can have customers (i.e. humans with money to spend). 2) Do not let foreign entities extract profit from our markets. We must extract profits from their markets.
To a certain degree, yes. It’s important how you define equality. Equality should not be sameness. There should be some across the board equity in our notion of common value. It’s about maintaining a standard more than just taking money away from people and giving it to other people. People cluster around a mean.
Inequality is and should be inevitable as long as individuals demonstrate unequal amounts of work ethic, risk, and personal sacrifice to achieve their goals AND we have the freedom to do so.
Their perspective is that once they make everyone else poor, living in pods they dont own, renting their clothes, eating food made from bugs, working via vr headset, having to get permission to go outside. THE even though they will all still be massively rich owning everything and doing whatever they want, they think that still counts as more "equity" than before.
Not sure that wealth inequality is the biggest problem on the worlds agenda. Their mission is to improve the state of the world through business and government channels. They are not concerned with balancing the scales so much as increasing the wellbeing of everyone in the system.
@@XOPOIIIO Those with the riches, have the obligation to give what they have exploited society to earn. Without the 99% of people being exploited, they would not have accumulated such obscene wealth.
Vid in collaboration with World Economic Forum made up of multibillion dollar for profit companies. That’s why its tone is defeatist’s “oh well” rather than “can it be reversed”. So it makes perfect sense why they used the tone they did.
Except I am generous, and I don't make s*** for money. Maybe that's my problem. Maybe if I was more greedy I can have all the accoutrements and political influence of the rich. Brilliant stuff
Before talking about inequality we should probably establish why inequality is bad. And then we should get more focus on what is worse, inequality where the poor are quite OK or equality where everyone is equally miserable because that's clearly not obvious to a lot of people. Otherwise that's another excellent video, thanks, TED-Ed.
When rich mess up with housing prices and gamble around with real estate assets to the point To the point that people can not afford to pay rent or buy a home in a city That is a problem!!!! I I don't fu**ing care about rich people, but when I can't afford a home in a city because this fu**ing bastards are spiking house prices, that is a thing that I have a problem with!
Inequality is inevitable. The thing we could do is make those who live in poverty happy as well like giving scholarship,etc. And that's how to giving them opportunity and access to grow as well.
And one other point- inequality is not necessarily a bad in and of itself. A Gini index of 1, for example. is neither desirable nor productive- if you'd be paid the same amount for doing literally nothing as you would be paid for attending 12 years of rigorous education after high school to become a surgeon, we very likely wouldn't see many surgeons. This is an absolute extreme example, mind you, and by no means warrants the outright condemnation of welfarism that many people take this to imply. The main point is, per John Rawls, some level of inequality is acceptable, even desirable, because it creates incentives for people to do things that benefit everybody. Rawls argued, to oversimplify, that the well-ordered society would have exactly as much inequality as would be most beneficial to the worst-off. In other words, economic inequality is acceptable if it is a direct consequence of improving everybody's lives. This is not a condemnation of market systems or capitalism broadly either- prices play the roles of allocating scarce resources, but also of informing producers and consumers of how valued certain outputs are. Without that information, there is little way for anybody to know what could possibly be in the best interests of the public (even the USSR at its peak of Leninism relied on Western valuations of goods to assign production schedules). It's food for thought, to be sure. If you wanted a sweeping conclusion from all of this, I'd have to disappoint you- it's foolish to jump to broad conclusions with sweeping consequences with any amount of information. But there's so many contingencies and problems with all the mechanisms stated above that, if you are really interested in pursuing this line of thought further, I would implore you to pick up some light reading on the subject. The Socialist Calculation Debate and Market Centralization are good places to start, along with the question of "how well do current societies running on market economies actually reveal what things are worth?"
You, God and All scientists do not know that the concentration of Wealth in the hands of an Owner happens in two ways: 1) The free market, no matter how much it is regulated, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. 2) The exploitation of the Employee by the Owner, also, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration. The only sustainable solution is perpetual redistribution of Wealth from places of Extreme concentration (regardless if private or public) to every citizen evenly. A Repeated Redistribution is the only way towards a more equal society because nobody can stop the exploitation at the work place and nobody can stop the concentration of Wealth by free trade. 1) To sustain a free market You must tax the extreme concentration of Wealth and then give it evenly to everybody , again and again, so that the market can have customers (i.e. humans with money to spend). 2) Do not let foreign entities extract profit from our markets. We must extract profits from their markets.
Why does one 'Have' to do this ? Serious question. We literally see in China that not doing this caused per capita income to more than 10x in a few decades (!!) Maybe having a MUCH higher per capita income, for everyone, is slightly more important than some silly gini number that the World Economic Forum does not like. Also, who determines what level of inequality is 'reasonable', is it reasonable to let some corrupt politicians decide how wealthy someone can become ? Why do we want to live in a society where meddlesome bureaucrats have so much say on how we live ? Do you really want some government agent coming into your home to take away your second car, because someone else has to take a bus to work ? To make everyone in the world equal, as the video refers to at the end, would require a MUCH lower standard of living for almost everyone in the west, besides the homeless...
@@sprinkle61 Compare the US to Scandinavia. The latter have better metrics when it comes to citizens being happy. It's a matter of balance. Redistribute too much wealth, and there is no incentive to work hard. Redistribute too little and the rich get too powerful and can abuse their position, like in the US. This happens in Scandinavia too, but not nearly to the same degree.
@@midimusicforever Its easier to be happy when you have a very homogeneous and cohesive society, and its easier to have more equality when a country isn't driving technological innovation and large scale wealth gains. Scandinavia has certain advantages that larger more innovative countries don't have, so its not an apples to apples comparison. Most countries that are small (in population) and rich enough have great quality of life, but lack the racial and poverty issues of larger and more diverse countries.
YES We are born unequal in personal traits (intelligence, sociability, etc) and this will diverge as we go through time. Not to mention, exterior world is not linear in any regime and offers non-linear opportunities that exacerbates the inequality. All you can hope for is equality of chance (education, jobs) and systems designs to curb inequality (either discretionary via governments or automatic)
With the WEF around, inequality is inevitable yes! They work to benefit big businesses, not to reduce the inequality gap..... Quite the opposite, they want to make it bigger. When was the last time a non billionaire got invited to one of their conferences?
This is a question I find myself asking a lot. There's a ton of systems out there but they're all flawed in a way that leads to inequality. Thanks ted ed for enlightening me
I completely agree, the billionaires are the ones we should go after and try to tax them (50% or so) to prevent them from getting over wealthy. The issue is that most of this wealth billionaires have are in stocks (mostly of their own companies). If they take money out, than yes that can be taxed, but if not then it can not be taxed. If lets say Elon Musk sells his tesla stocks, he would not be able to make much (in comparison to his wealth) as investors would freak out that he is doing so and sell. You see that their wealth is basically fake, it is just the evaluation of their company. Their real wealth is how much cash they have on hand, which usually is lower than you might expect. When ever they need money, they just sell a couple stocks.
@VladLen that's not forced equality lmao. That's just having rules. Like for example having a cap to the maximum amount of money that can be donated to a politician by a single person/corporation idk.
@@paulmuscat2542 these rich people you're trying to tax are the same people that come up with innovations, provide us with amazing phones/electronics etc. You taxing unfairly them because they're rich (aka punishing them for their succeses) only slows down innovation and causes stagnation in technological Development.
Shouldn't they make educational videos based on their worldview? Shouldn't they say that higher taxation usually funds social programmes? Should they hide their sponsorship?... Why the irony, exactly?
@@Humanresouces a huge topic tbh but in my opinion: capitalism is the system that so far has “worked” the best for economic growth(not that it doesn’t need Improvement) 2.I personally dont like the idea of anyone being punished for doing well through redistribution and inheritance tax because it removes incentive. For example i can’t understand why it is morally wrong to want to work hard for your children and for redistribution i dont understand why its wrong to want to work hard to build a large company. And if you are very rich ceo most of your money isn’t even going towards yourself it goes towards growing the company. 3.The choice is between unfairness and inequality and which one you personally think is the lesser of two evils. The world cannot be fair and equal just by definition. Not saying i purely agree with one or the other just that tiptoeing into trying to create equality is very risky and needs to be done with much care as communism has shown throughout history.
i just dont like the possibility of bias in education. No they should not make videos on their worldview education should be from all perspectives. Not saying this video is bad i just dont like the “possibility” of bias sponsorship’s bring and also dont like 5:34 because it feels ironic to be sponsored and say this.
I'd say we started this idea of possession we headed down a dark path. Money is the worst form of possession to me. The idea of currency is a great way to buy and sell goods and services but it should serve us, not the other way around.
“There will always be poor people in the land. That is why I am commanding you, ‘You should generously open up your hand to your afflicted and poor brother in your land.’” (Deuteronomy 15:11)🕊️
This is a central theme of the book Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow . The question keeps changing though, because they realize the faults in the question “what are the origins of inequality”. Power imbalances and the degree to which they are prominent in any culture depends on many factors of perceived cost and value. In some cases ~ material wealth is considered very burdening or ceremonial. Material wealth has also not always been a prerequisite for social power. We just now live in a world dominated by materialist economics and seem to prefer the social/political strength it provides.
Great reference 👍 you always have to keep things in perspective and realize that there are MANY viable ways to run a society. They’re all going to have inequality, but how that inequality shakes itself out is unique to each society.
Material wealth has been a prerequisite for social power since we became settled agrarians. Agrarian societies meant owning property == owning food == ultimate power over the lives of others.
@@agilemind6241 not quite true. This is what they talked about in the book. Plenty of societies have been “settled” but not “agrarian” and others with “land ownership” not implying absolute authority. There are many instances in which these various culture traits have been separated or blended.
"Power imbalances and the degree to which they are prominent in any culture depends on many factors of perceived cost and value." No. Power imbalances are a fundamental axiom of existence, and innately unavoidable; it has little to do with perception. For all organisms, across all domains (both natural & creative), the majority of rewards and/or resources are reaped by a minority of units. This is known as the Iron Law of Oligarchy. It started out as a socio-political phenomenon until it was noted that the pattern exists across all known forms of life & energy usage. No matter the context, a few will always take the majority of resources from the many. "Material wealth has also not always been a prerequisite for social power." It never has been, and is not today. What it *IS* today, is what it also has always been; a medium for power. It is & has never been a prerequisite, but simply another avenue for achieving it. You reek of Marxist ideologies and all of the ignorance towards power structures that such delusions entail.
the origins of inequality are simple to understand. Mesopotamians didn't have combine harvesters, nitrogen rich ammonia fertilizers, pvc piping or glass green houses. 5,000 years ago Ancient Near East agriculture techniques, such as human or ox powered labored plowing, were primitive compared to machinery that exist today, point is societies back then were in the minor leagues when it came to harvesting and plant science and so those ancient peoples had to ration, as population in 3rd millenium BC was larger then the sizes of lands dedicated to farmining, in other words the quanity of mouths to feed was larger than the small field sizes dedicated to farming, small because agricultural techniques back then was weren't advanced enough to allow neolithic farmers to use more land that would be often inundated by flooding and what arose from rationing ? Wages. People recieved rations of barley, wool and oil based on what labor they did. Every economic concept that exists today from price to trade to debt to rent to mortage to ownership came from farming
When it comes to the world of investing,most people don't know where to start. Fortunately, great investors of the past and present can provide us with guidance.
As an old student of Economics, I can confirm that this is the most accurate information about Relative Poverty and Inequality. Literally leaving no aspect of the topic.. I am from Pakistan and $1= 220 PKR right now. Pakistan is going through a deep recession right now along with massive inflation throughout the economy, including necessary products as well. Yet, our politicians usually countered this situation by the statement that we still have prices lower than the prices in US. But no one ever told them that poverty and affordability depend on both prices and incomes. I remember about 6 months ago I did a personal research all by myself about this. I extracted the average price of one dozen eggs and the per capita income of both countries. According to my research, an average US citizen can afford 23 dozen eggs in one meal. Whereas an average Pakistani citizen can afford only 7 eggs (not 7 dozen) in one meal. They'd better make me the Prime Minister 😅
@@caesar5588 yeah bro studying an Economy is so theoretical it enhances your explanation skills. I recommend every student or junior whether he is interested in Sciences, Commerce, Engineering or anything to study Economics
@@caesar5588 in the Soviet Union the lowest salary was 70 rubles per month for street sweepers while the highest salary was for the president, 800 rubles per month. and there is a wealth limit where 1 person can only have a maximum of 2 houses and 1 car
Good analysis. But what and how much u can buy is mostly a problem of your own national economic and political institutions. For a number reason ppl in US can buy more eggs than those in Pakistan.
@@newagain9964 Lol when did I say its not😅 Yes you're completely right that these things do depend on an Economy's handlers... But resources do have an impact. Like, for example, most of the countries in the Middle East have a really good economy and very strong exchange rate because of the presence of Oil. Others like US and China rely a lot on their massive areas which allow them to build big industrial areas and lots of farming lands. A number of reasons why Pakistan is not that good include low value addition products, major primary sector contribution, negative NX(Exports - Imports), corrupt tax system, high political instability, very percentage of dependent population, low incomes etc etc which ultimately contribute to low currency value and low GDP. I could talk a lot more about Economics but its a rather boring subject and when talking about a country which people are not interested in further makes this comment unattractive to most🤡
It is not a simple problem because until now It is still present. For me it is inevitable because in social classes we have different levels that results to inequality. Great content and by the way I love your videos.
in the Soviet Union the lowest salary was 70 rubles per month for street sweepers while the highest salary was for the president, 800 rubles per month. and there is a wealth limit where 1 person can only have a maximum of 2 houses and 1 car
I do think inequality is inevitable. I think instead of trying to get completely rid of it, our primary focus should be creating an environment where inequality doesn't directly and adversely impact people. Preventing discrimination and bias, providing access to resources is what we need to work on.
love you guys, you have continued to humble and teach innumerable adults throughout the years, been with y'all for ten years and its always something compelling to think about with varying propensity
The WEF, which sponsored this video, is famous for having said that in the future they hope for, you will own nothing and be happy. And who will control everything? The WEF and the Billionaires and CEO's that fund it.
Indeed, that was very interesting video. In my humble opinion there is nothing wrong with moderate levels of economic inequality. Extreme economic inequality or full-blown equality are both harmful to the development of society. Perhaps it would be a little bit too moralistic, but I believe what we need is not only optimal and effective economic policy. We need to develop cultural traditions, which will instill in high-class people sense of moral duty towards society. If they have more privileges than the rest, they should also have more responsibility. It's an ancient idea, which was proposed by Confucius and Plato(Eastern and western philosophers).While it's an ancient idea, I think it's necessary foundation for our civilization, which we forgot and need to brought up again.
Absolutely right. There is a cultural narrative we tell in each country which affects this. In countries like UK and USA there is too much emphasis on celebrating the entrepreneur as if they are the pinnacle of humans and thus downplaying the fact that their riches come from the hard work of hundreds, or thousands, or millions of people around them whether they work in their companies, educated them at school, clean their streets, or looked after them when they were sick. Thus we tell ourselves a false narrative that they should not be heavily taxed or else they might stop being entrepreneurs. But I cannot believe that a entrepreneur would not be entrepreneurial if they could 'only' amass a wealth of £1billion rather than £2billion. I mean, even if they get taxed a billion pounds more they are still a billionaire with more money than they could possibly spend! We should change the narrative to say that those who have successfully created wealth were people who managed to extract the most value out of society and thus they are obliged to put more back into society in order to keep it a healthy society that can help them and their future generations stay healthy and successful. Taking value out of society and not giving some back is akin to being a vampire.
Well said. Veritasium's video "Is Success Luck or Hard Work?" made a really interesting about that. For me, he summarised really well how the mindset towards economic success all individuals should have to achieve what you described. So much so it became on of my guiding values.
EDIT: Apparently, the comment that this was replying to got deleted or hidden. To give context in case it isn't restored, it used to read: "The rich only serve themselves they have no moral duty towards society and they never will" The following was my answer to it. ----------------- Let's breakdown that sentence, shall we? By saying "the rich", it tells us that you assume that EVERY rich person that has ever existed and will ever exist suffer from that ailment. "and they never will" tells us that you assume that no person can ever change. "only serve themselves they have no moral duty towards society". To say this about someone is to consider them sociopathic. So, by that entire sentence, you're saying that not only the currently alive 62.5 million millionaires of the entire world, but all that existed and will exist (around 5 million people a year in the last 5 years) are unfixable sociopaths. Which also implies that, in your opinion, to be/become rich you either need to become sociopath or already be one. If we can find either one (1) single millionaire that does not fit your description or one (1) that managed to change the behaviours and thoughts in their life, your entire opinion falls flat. That's the price you pay for making such a bold statement without any kind of argumentation and good base behind it. It becomes extra brittle. I'm 100% willing to hear your opinion, but unless you don't stop parroting and talking based on emotion and start bringing some logic, facts and emotionally neutral observations to the table, your points will be completely ignored by any person that is willing to seriously discuss this topic. Source: Credit Suisse's 2022's Global Wealth Report
Holy cow, i was just thinking of this about 2 months ago. Societies toward inequality and the concentration of wealth at the top unless things are "shaken up" to make things more equal, typically by the government. Most people my age have been fed this very extreme capitalist ideology from a very young age. Hopefully as we get older and the more extreme it gets, more and more people see that this current system isnt working. Something needs to change. It either comes from the government finally doing something to equalize the situation, or a revolution happens to make it so.(obviously not preferred.) And so everyone understands, a more equal society is a society that is stronger. We are the UNITED States, the more people can engage in healthy way, the better we are off.
I think the takeaways of this video is that inequality is on a continuum, that it tends to accentuate overtime under capitalism, and that there are various policies that lower inequality and that have shown positive results for societies that implement them.
In thermodynamics you need “inequality” or difference in energy potentials in order to do any work, a perfectly equal universe of all mass and energy being equally distributed there’s no potential energy, it’s the same thing with economies you need some inequality in order to get work done. The issue is how much inequality is the right amount and type (you want inequality to be based on hard work not something like birth), and also that number fluxes based on the context so it’s almost an impossible problem.
Please please please. I don't want to start an argument I'm just genuinely curious. Why shouldn't the tax rate be the same for everyone? Since it's a percentage the richer you are the more you pay right so why should the tax rate be higher if you're richer?
Well the problem with fixed tax rate is that for very poor people it would get to a point where you cannot pay the necessary expenses, if we put our tax rate to avoid the previous scenario then the tax rate would be really low and not enough money would be collected. In theory it could be like that and probably has existed in the past but it is not enough to diminish wealth inequality.
Yes, Inequality is inevitable, as human society revolves all day around Power. But, this doesn't give any government an excuse to not try to lift their citizens from poverty by giving them housing, education and healthcare.
There's no profit to be made from subsidized housing, education, healthcare or food. Which should all be human rights and not commodities to be profited from.
@@jimmytimmy3680 Exactly. I shouldn't have to pay for my food, healthcare or housing. Rather, others should be forced to provide it to me. How dare a landlord demand I pay him rent, take his property and give it to me. And the nerve of farmers?? Demanding we pay them for the food they grow? Excuse me, food is my right, so I shouldn't have to pay for it.
@@stansman5461 Wow, snarky. Have you considered Vienna’s government owned apartments? There is no profit motive, so the rent only has to pay for building maintenance, which results in much lower rents, typically about $300 per month. Also, due to the lower rents at government apartments, it pulls down the rental costs for privately owned apartments, making the cost of shelter cheaper for a large portion of the population. The notion that the government providing support is taking money out of your pocket is naive. You are going to pay for those people regardless. You can invest a bit of money early and have them grow up to be productive members of society, or you can wait and invest that money into police and incarceration to deal with the shitheads that are a direct result of growing up in poverty.
I'm Indian and you are saying $300 is a low rent is a huge shock to me. Because here you can have an individual house with a garden for that same amount. IDK why the cost of living is so high in Europe?.
As long as you have ambition and laziness you will have inequity. Responsibility vs the irresponsible. The ultimate right to choose your own fate, success come out of you not upon you.
@@Maelstromme a lazy person who became poor can change, and overcome there are examples everywhere. There are also homeless people who were once wealthy.
@@ChrisSchramm-bt8do Yes, but their success hedges on other lazy people not changing. If every lazy person decided to change, then making the choice would cease to matter. All the competition in society would become increasingly based on discriminating factors such as talent if everyone is putting in a great deal of effort and grit. Also, there’s a such thing as a golden parachute. Once you’re into the wealthy social circles, and you have those connections- you could be incompetent as a rock and there will always be somebody to bail you out.
@@Maelstromme the goal is a dependent controllable obedient population. Refuse to participate in that BS. The successful are not your enemies, they are the example. Look all the business failures post covid, success is not guaranteed, all business people are not wealthy... they just refuse to be dependent and controllable.
Actually most of the money goes to the military that WE BARELY USE nowadays. Even when we do use it, the wars we fight have no good result. Iraq is a disaster filled with corruption, civil conflict, and Iraninan influence. Afghanistan is still run by the Taliban after 2 trillion dollars. We put all money and no effort.
Not everyone in the comments section is from the USA, but there is a strong truth that something which makes Americans different from much of the rest of the world is that they see themselves as displaced millionaires instead of the actual economic situation they are in. The "American dream" and that "one day my ship will come in" and get rich schemes and so forth - and you see a lot of that in the comments section. There are significantly more vacant homes in the USA than there are homeless to fill them. The USA trashes more food than it would take to feed the hungry (also a distribution/supply chain problem but still true). In a nation that claims to be capitalist, the only welfare that is supported is for corporations and banks who are "too big to fail" while everyone else has to play the game. Just one of the several bailouts and tax credits given since 20008 could have provided free college education and universal healthcare and provided a universal basic income to everyone (even cutting checks to bill gates - as in everyone). This has been discussed in detail several times over, but no. We have to help corruption institutions and support the military industrial complex instead of taking care of the citizens and supporting future generations.
You're just making a random generalization about what you think Americans are like. I've never met anyone that thinks they are displaced millionaires and I highly doubt most people feel that way. That's just ridiculous. Ask any normal person that 1 on 1 directly I guarantee you NO ONE will say they feel like a displaced millionaire or that they are following the "American dream" that's so silly and unrealistic.
I don't really care about your other points. It just sounds like a lot of buzz words and nitpicking flaws when there is a lot to appreciate in the country. But you act like the US does absolutely nothing to help its poor citizens when it actually does a ton. I grew up poor and I had almost free subsidized housing, food stamps, college completely paid for, and more. The US has PLENTY of welfare. A lot of which doesn't get factored in when calculating the wealth if the lower classes. Which yes their income might be lower but they also have lots of programs that help dramatically increase their quality of life that doesn't directly tie in to income. The US does A LOT for its poor. Also homelessness in Amerkca isn't at all a housing issue its a mental health issues our main issue is offering help for those dealing with addictions and mental issues. By far the biggest reason for prolonged homelessness. Homelessness in the US due to poverty is very small and is usually temporary ad there are lots of support systems out there for those who are willing to reach out for help and are obviously sane enough to work with.
@@geralferald Yeah things were pretty good for the poor before George W. Bush and the Great Recession. The good days are gone now. Now here in the 21st century, the smart poor people read and admire Karl Marx and the ones who don't like to read books above a 6th or 7th grade reading level or have deep conversations join the far right wing extremists and attack the Capitol. The poor are so much worse off nowadays that they've become extremists. It's a sight to behold!!!!
@@j100j yes inexistence is the ultimate singularity ultimate EQUALITY which we all will go either by crying at our death ads or happy. So id say keep the show going as long as we can.
It’s tough to deny that inequality seems built into our systems, but I don’t think it has to be that way. While some level of difference is natural, the extreme gaps we see today are largely driven by policy choices and societal values. We can change things if we push for fairer systems that prioritize education, healthcare, and opportunities for everyone. It’s all about creating a level playing field, because we have the power to challenge these norms and work toward a more equitable future.
This especially includes that people who need additional money (for example people with impairments need more resources than others) have the opportunity to participate in the social, cultural and political sphere of their environment.
Yes. It is. Equality of opportunity should be the goal. Not everyone possesses drive, passion, work ethic, etc. And usually it is the people that do possess those that succeed financially. Those same people may have very flawed personal relationships. There are trade offs to everything.
No one asks for perfect equality. We just ask for no one possessing 300 billion dollars while others don’t have anything, for no one to earn 15 millions a year when others earn 1000, and no one to inherit fortunes they did nothing to deserve while others inherit nothing because they didn’t hit the jackpot at birth. I am fine with someone more hard working and lucky to earn 4 times what i earn. I am not fine for anyone to earn 10 000 times what i earn.
A short Google Scholar search shows that there's growing evidence that early human societies were egalitarian. There have also been egalitarian tribes and peoples throughout history, though many of these were erased by imperialists or rivals. By this point in history, we should know well enough as humans that equality should be the norm. But special interests continue to try to convince us that that's an impossible dream. This partnership with WEF and videos made based on their pro-billionaire views has been beyond concerning, to the point that I sadly don't think I can watch TED-Ed any longer. I've found enough other great creators to make up for what I'll be missing here. For anyone else interested, creators like Khadija Mbowe, Crash Course, F.D. Signifier, Forrest Valkai, Bad Astra, CJ the X, and Overly Sarcastic Productions all make great informative stuff.
But you have to see the issue with your logic. You're basically arguing for egalitarian, but stagnant (or slow-developing) societies. Where everyone is the same, but the standard of living is lower and increases at a slow pace, if at all. That's not desirable - at least in my opinion; yours can differ, of course. But in my mind, it is much better to have a less equal society where everyone, including the bottom rung, is better off and can live a better life, than a fully equal society that lives in desolate, squalid conditions. After all, that's what your statement "erased by rivals" implies. The societies that were able to advance and develop more quickly are the ones that win out, after all. Now tell me: would you truly rather live in an unequal, but advanced society that has all of the amenities of the modern world (ranging from modern healthcare, to education, to the internet, to countless other things that make your life healthier, easier, and more fulfilling to live), or in a fully egalitarian, but undeveloped and primitive society where people still die in their 30s and have to live like animals, where even the best-off person is still poorer than the poorest person in the advanced society? I know that is an extreme example. But taken over a long time scale and complete isolation from one another (i.e. the more powerful rival can't conquer, influence, or "erase" the other), that's what would happen. One society would have equality but no development, and the other would have development but no equality. In the end, I will always pick development over equality. I'd rather live in a world where everyone has a nice life, even if the richest person has a million times as much as the poorest, than one where everyone suffers, but is equal in their suffering.
Viewers should note that this video should be viewed as a persuasive, rather than merely informative, video. It is motivated my more than merely explaining all the facts objectively The sponsor of this video, the World Economic Forum, holds the narrative laid out in its video as among its core principles. This video outlines only one telling of world events. In practice, many narrative assumptions made in this video are contested
Inequality is an inevitable consequence of neo liberal capitalism. It is a system that foster accumulation over repartition. In this paradigm, some people will always have too much when others will have nothing.
To quote the Shakespearian depths of writing that is The Purge franchise, "There have always been the haves and the have-nots. It is the way of things"
Now I wonder how moneyless societies would fit on the Gini scale since people didn't have "incomes" or "wages". They acquired and distributed resources collectively. Wouldn't that be "equality" in the economic sense?
Love Ted-Ed. Not a socialist; let alone a commie. Hated this... ...Maybe the clue was the screen that said "Made in Partnership with World Economic Forum"...
I don't have a problem with rich people existing. What I do have a problem with, is people not even being able to afford living.
Elon Musk can waste 100 trillion dollars on that Mars colony that's never gonna happen, I don't really care about that. I just want to be able to earn enough money so that not all of them go on my rent, bills and taxes.
@@dork7546 Destroy taxes and the others won't be a problem.
@@freedomofspeech2867 I understand I gotta pay taxes. It's just that in my country, middle class and lower class people have to pay really high taxes too.
literally just did a study on this and theres a 90% correlation between gini index and relative poverty. It's not about inequality so much as it's about getting people out of relative poverty. The best ways are with things like free education and healthcare as they actually mean the government has to collect less tax in the long run. People keep mistaking the idea that unequal income distribution isn't fair when in fact all we need is for no-one to be stuck at the very bottom of society. (Note, this probably means taxing the wealthy more temporarily but would result in long-run decreases in tax on them as governments have less requirement for income transfers - because people can actually earn a living wage!)
what kind of life should people be able to afford
I guess it's more of a 'trying to curb inequality as much as possible' instead of a 'getting rid of inequality' kinda situation. Getting rid of it seems unrealistic.
Inequality is not a problem.
I would say it's somewhat needed as well .
It seems unnrealistic because this video was funded by the rich 1%, the WEF represents the world plutocracy. They want you to believe it is not possible. It is extremely difficult since the rich own all the world's politicians, but it is not impossible to change the syste.
@@XOPOIIIO gender inequality
I think there's a misunderstanding of equality here. They're using it as everyone's outcome should be equal. Equal wage etc. But was it fair? As in was the opportunity there etc? Is it okay to tax someone a higher percentage because they're more successful? 🤔 Is it morally okay?
Some "inequality" is OK, as long as the bottom group can survive comfortably and the top group re-invest and become good employers. Sadly that is not happening in too many places, causing misery for many.
I'd argue that some inequality isn't just ok, it's necessary. After all, nobody is making any money unless they have a job, and no one can have a job if there's no one to pay them for their work.
The issue is being the employer comes with responsibility, and many employers have gotten so far from their employees that there's basically no consequences for failing that responsibility.
I also think that there are inevitable issues with the idea of education being fundamental in lowering inequality. I say this because, as we’re seeing now, we have a massive overly-educated undereducated group of people in the workforce. Most jobs don’t require a 4 year degree. And unfortunately out of the fear of someone being “unequal” we push them through universities even if they aren’t actually worthy of the degree (in terms of actual learning vs Cs get degrees). It reminds me of the Vietnamese War where America marked success with body counts. Thus discretion on who’s actually an enemy and who’s a non combatant led to an angry distrustful local populace. It’s important to consider the real world consequences of using one or two standards to mark the success of very complex situations
@@TheGregamonster if everyone in the US is paid equally, everyone would make $147,000 per year (US GDP/Working population). everyone will be living comfortably, and no one would have money problems. The only thing preventing that from happening is greed.
@@beamboy14526 if everyone in the US is paid equally, then no one has any incentive to to the jobs that are hard or unpleasant when they could just be doing nothing instead and get paid the same, and then society collapses.
Just because we have enough money for everyone to live comfortably doesn't mean we can afford to give it to everyone regardless of how much or little they contribute.
@@TheGregamonster This one bothers me the most of all the arguments. We already KNOW that the jobs which are brutal and dangerous don't pay ANYTHING close to jobs that anyone would be cool with doing. We also found out that even when faced with ZERO PEOPLE APPLYING, businesses will not raise wages. Which actually proves that wages aren't tied to a supply/demand model either. In reality wages are based ENTIRELY off of the minimum a business has been able to offer a particular job for. A minimum which they will try to stick to for decades until their competitors are offering too much for that minimum to work anymore. In fact we KNOW this is the case as the only reason we have 8 hour work weeks is because Henry Ford offered it to steal all of his competitions skilled labor and it was impossible as a business to compete with that. So really the only thing that changes what people are paid for a job is how much of an impact that wage makes in the competitive market for labor.
Inequality is less important than what the lowest rung of society has. We should strive to raise the floor of society so that everyone's needs are met. We have the means.
This is why free markets are better. Yes, they lead to inequality, but they also provide better living standards for the bottom 10%.
@@freesk8 And yet the free market has screwed many people especially in sectors like housing and healthcare. When there will always be a demand for something, they will be able to do whatever they however they want.
Government regulations are still important in keeping a free market stable and free from abuse. Essential things like healthcare should be kept in check to make sure things like price-gouging not exist.
Both free market and government regulations are important and should work together so that a better economy and society is created.
@@freesk8 wrong! Free markets exploit the bottom 10%!
@@freesk8 tell that to the people in India, Bangladesh, China
@@hoezhiwan Best regulator is competition. That keeps quality high and price low.
the animation here is so well made and clever!! mad respect!!
right?? especially that wifi sign, so genius
My favourite part was when the people cross the wifi bridge. That was clever.
Shut up. These people are funded by the rich. They don't care about poverty and inequality. They just care about making us feel better about being poor.
@@alinenegrea4920 I was thinking the same thing!
Yeh asking for exact identical situations in all things is absurd, but basic standards of living and human rights shouldn't be fantasy either.
Human rights like a property right, and equal responsibilities for all people regardless of their income.
@@XOPOIIIO Talk about confirmation bias? I wonder why you mention this human right and not the other twenty nine...
@@XOPOIIIO So just to be clear, are you saying that if someone can't earn enough money to live, like for example because they are paraplegic, then they should just die? If it's not what you are saying, then please add some nuance to your discourse.
@@thomasfisher4833 Because other rights are out of context.
@@Tamizushi I said "equal responsibilities" not "no responsibilities". I also don't understand the idea to help paraplegic from the money you stole, instead of your own.
Really liking these new videos discussing economics, policy, and the way we live, keep it up!
You mean propaganda that benefit you.
@@freedomofspeech2867 The WOKE channels are TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOM!
There's also a series from the channel Crash Course Economics.
Vid support from World Economic Forum run by billionaires. That’s why it had an “oh well no real solutions” defeatist tone to it.
U like wef propaganda
Amazing video as usual. I just have to point out that the world economic forum is funded by billion-dollar industries that actually work against the same principles detailed in this video.
Yeahhhh
Which is scary
Was a little suprised to see the WEF on a TED ed video tbh, wouldn't really have thought they'd do that.
✨P&R and propaganda✨
Seems like Ted-Ed is only interested in creating rich person propaganda these days.
TED-Ed always have great production, but this one was exceptional - the animation, the script, the voiceover 👍
Shut up. These people are funded by the rich. They don't care about poverty and inequality. They just care about making us feel better about being poor.
Couldn't agree more 👍😁
One of the most visually intriguing animations I've seen from you guys in the past few years. Great job!
I REALLY LOVE THIS NEW STYLE YOU GUYS ARE TRYING. I love the characters. They're so full of emotion, they literally feel like human beings and that's what makes this video so wholesome. I actually enjoyed this video whilst learning about something new
yes
you do realize they have a different style every video, do you?
That's not how Ted Ed works. Each video content is made by different educator and animator. Ted Ed simply uploads and host their ideas.
@@InspirationPurpose in the Soviet Union the lowest salary was 70 rubles per month for street sweepers while the highest salary was for the president, 800 rubles per month. and there is a wealth limit where 1 person can only have a maximum of 2 houses and 1 car
There’s no need to shout.
The creativity put into visualizing this video is unbelievable!
Used to really enjoy these videos too, good information still but leaves a weird “taste” now
That weird "taste" is the bitter truth of how this world works unfortunately 😕
@@francis_n i know
@@dylancrozier9673Because the world is sad. The videos talk more about the world and therefore become more sad.
I would have loved to see you touch on domestic versus international wealth inequality. And also the difference between income inequality and wealth inequality. I feel like those are the two main things that most people don’t understand.
everyone here is discussing economic and inequality like real adults while all I can remember from this video is the voice over at 3:20
The level of the arguments posed by the narrator is appreciably awesome. One must ponder and try to get more knowledge in order to understand the concepts mentioned in this video. Best wishes for your voyage!
Here in the Philippines, many people are suffering from poverty due to lack of education, misguidance by their parents, and the use of illegal drugs. All these factors result in many crimes afterwards. Additionally, a bad governance is adding a chain to the lives of many Filipinos from local to national There is still corruption & manipulation. And I realized, it is the wrong attitude that makes us poor. Therefore, it is difficult to rise against inequality because people think differently.
You have summarized what most developing nations go through
The Philippines also elected a thief and son of a dictator as their president.
Wrong attitude developed by the people living in a system that has stolen hopes and dreams from them. Can we really blame them?
Communist
Are these really the causes of poverty? Poverty does not exist in nature, we invented it.
World Economic Forum lol. Truly James Bond characters at work there.
Oh my god the animation is so satisfying it's almost distracting how well done it is
It's made by the world economic forum though the people who wish to enslave us 💀
Anthropology gives us an insight. Primitive societies have very limited amounts of inequality. Most inequality we see in human civilization is caused by the advent of agriculture.
If you divided all the money and valuables in the world equally between all the people in the world, within less than 5 minutes, some people would be richer than others. It's an impossible task.
You, God and All scientists do not know that the concentration of Wealth in the hands of an Owner happens in two ways:
1) The free market, no matter how much it is regulated, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration.
2) The exploitation of the Employee by the Owner, also, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration.
The only sustainable solution is perpetual redistribution of Wealth from places of Extreme concentration (regardless if private or public) to every citizen evenly. A Repeated Redistribution is the only way towards a more equal society because nobody can stop the exploitation at the work place and nobody can stop the concentration of Wealth by free trade.
1) To sustain a free market You must tax the extreme concentration of Wealth and then give it evenly to everybody , again and again, so that the market can have customers (i.e. humans with money to spend).
2) Do not let foreign entities extract profit from our markets. We must extract profits from their markets.
Yep, while all Ted-Ed videos are worth watching, this one is a step ahead. Well done, and thank you for sharing!
To a certain degree, yes. It’s important how you define equality. Equality should not be sameness. There should be some across the board equity in our notion of common value. It’s about maintaining a standard more than just taking money away from people and giving it to other people. People cluster around a mean.
I think it would be an interesting concept on if a wealth tax would be good or not.
Why wouldn't it.
1:58 Very important point very well put.
Inequality is and should be inevitable as long as individuals demonstrate unequal amounts of work ethic, risk, and personal sacrifice to achieve their goals AND we have the freedom to do so.
World Economic Forum includes a lot of rich folks, how many of them are lining up to donate their wealth to solve inequality?
Their perspective is that once they make everyone else poor, living in pods they dont own, renting their clothes, eating food made from bugs, working via vr headset, having to get permission to go outside. THE even though they will all still be massively rich owning everything and doing whatever they want, they think that still counts as more "equity" than before.
Funny that the WEF which represents the 1% of richest and the world's plutocracy wants to talk about inequality.😂😂😂😂😂
Not sure that wealth inequality is the biggest problem on the worlds agenda. Their mission is to improve the state of the world through business and government channels. They are not concerned with balancing the scales so much as increasing the wellbeing of everyone in the system.
Your moral obligations does not depend on your riches.
@@XOPOIIIO Those with the riches, have the obligation to give what they have exploited society to earn. Without the 99% of people being exploited, they would not have accumulated such obscene wealth.
The animation is immaculate.
I think, having the narrative of ‘is inequality reversible?’ might have made more sense…but great animation from Ted-Ed, as always!!! 👍🏻
Vid in collaboration with World Economic Forum made up of multibillion dollar for profit companies. That’s why its tone is defeatist’s “oh well” rather than “can it be reversed”. So it makes perfect sense why they used the tone they did.
Everyone is also so generous, the unfortunate thing is that they're just generous with money were never theirs.
th-cam.com/video/n_tn3TaHnf4/w-d-xo.html
Except I am generous, and I don't make s*** for money. Maybe that's my problem. Maybe if I was more greedy I can have all the accoutrements and political influence of the rich. Brilliant stuff
@@JasonMazzulla MaYbE iF i WaS mOrE gReEdY ... Dude, you just lazy 😂
Before talking about inequality we should probably establish why inequality is bad. And then we should get more focus on what is worse, inequality where the poor are quite OK or equality where everyone is equally miserable because that's clearly not obvious to a lot of people.
Otherwise that's another excellent video, thanks, TED-Ed.
When rich mess up with housing prices and gamble around with real estate assets to the point
To the point that people can not afford to pay rent or buy a home in a city
That is a problem!!!! I
I don't fu**ing care about rich people, but when I can't afford a home in a city because this fu**ing bastards are spiking house prices, that is a thing that I have a problem with!
Inequality is inevitable. The thing we could do is make those who live in poverty happy as well like giving scholarship,etc. And that's how to giving them opportunity and access to grow as well.
And one other point- inequality is not necessarily a bad in and of itself. A Gini index of 1, for example. is neither desirable nor productive- if you'd be paid the same amount for doing literally nothing as you would be paid for attending 12 years of rigorous education after high school to become a surgeon, we very likely wouldn't see many surgeons. This is an absolute extreme example, mind you, and by no means warrants the outright condemnation of welfarism that many people take this to imply. The main point is, per John Rawls, some level of inequality is acceptable, even desirable, because it creates incentives for people to do things that benefit everybody. Rawls argued, to oversimplify, that the well-ordered society would have exactly as much inequality as would be most beneficial to the worst-off. In other words, economic inequality is acceptable if it is a direct consequence of improving everybody's lives. This is not a condemnation of market systems or capitalism broadly either- prices play the roles of allocating scarce resources, but also of informing producers and consumers of how valued certain outputs are. Without that information, there is little way for anybody to know what could possibly be in the best interests of the public (even the USSR at its peak of Leninism relied on Western valuations of goods to assign production schedules). It's food for thought, to be sure. If you wanted a sweeping conclusion from all of this, I'd have to disappoint you- it's foolish to jump to broad conclusions with sweeping consequences with any amount of information. But there's so many contingencies and problems with all the mechanisms stated above that, if you are really interested in pursuing this line of thought further, I would implore you to pick up some light reading on the subject. The Socialist Calculation Debate and Market Centralization are good places to start, along with the question of "how well do current societies running on market economies actually reveal what things are worth?"
A well put critique. Unfortunately it will go over utopian heads... they love a good sweeping goal.
You, God and All scientists do not know that the concentration of Wealth in the hands of an Owner happens in two ways:
1) The free market, no matter how much it is regulated, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration.
2) The exploitation of the Employee by the Owner, also, leads inevitably to extreme levels of Wealth concentration.
The only sustainable solution is perpetual redistribution of Wealth from places of Extreme concentration (regardless if private or public) to every citizen evenly. A Repeated Redistribution is the only way towards a more equal society because nobody can stop the exploitation at the work place and nobody can stop the concentration of Wealth by free trade.
1) To sustain a free market You must tax the extreme concentration of Wealth and then give it evenly to everybody , again and again, so that the market can have customers (i.e. humans with money to spend).
2) Do not let foreign entities extract profit from our markets. We must extract profits from their markets.
One has to keep a balance between on the one hand keeping inequality reasonable, on the other hand reward those who walk the extra mile.
right
Why does one 'Have' to do this ? Serious question. We literally see in China that not doing this caused per capita income to more than 10x in a few decades (!!) Maybe having a MUCH higher per capita income, for everyone, is slightly more important than some silly gini number that the World Economic Forum does not like. Also, who determines what level of inequality is 'reasonable', is it reasonable to let some corrupt politicians decide how wealthy someone can become ? Why do we want to live in a society where meddlesome bureaucrats have so much say on how we live ? Do you really want some government agent coming into your home to take away your second car, because someone else has to take a bus to work ? To make everyone in the world equal, as the video refers to at the end, would require a MUCH lower standard of living for almost everyone in the west, besides the homeless...
@@sprinkle61 Compare the US to Scandinavia. The latter have better metrics when it comes to citizens being happy. It's a matter of balance. Redistribute too much wealth, and there is no incentive to work hard. Redistribute too little and the rich get too powerful and can abuse their position, like in the US. This happens in Scandinavia too, but not nearly to the same degree.
@@midimusicforever Its easier to be happy when you have a very homogeneous and cohesive society, and its easier to have more equality when a country isn't driving technological innovation and large scale wealth gains. Scandinavia has certain advantages that larger more innovative countries don't have, so its not an apples to apples comparison. Most countries that are small (in population) and rich enough have great quality of life, but lack the racial and poverty issues of larger and more diverse countries.
You wrongly assume that inequality is based on merit.
Inequality is based on Ownership of wealth.
The problem isn't having wealth than others but how we treat people that inequality persists.
YES
We are born unequal in personal traits (intelligence, sociability, etc) and this will diverge as we go through time.
Not to mention, exterior world is not linear in any regime and offers non-linear opportunities that exacerbates the inequality.
All you can hope for is equality of chance (education, jobs) and systems designs to curb inequality (either discretionary via governments or automatic)
I like the ending: "...societies tend toward inequality, unless we weaken the feedback loops of wealth and power concentration." lol HOW!?
Not society but Capitalism tends to inequality!
Communism on the other hand tends to equality.
I imagine with laws. But the problem is the rich get into the government or pay the government to push laws in their favor.
@@limitless1692 But in the communist countries what people earned wasn't much and poverty continued.
@@limitless1692 In theory. However, no communist or socialist society was ever equal
@@limitless1692by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator with force
With the WEF around, inequality is inevitable yes! They work to benefit big businesses, not to reduce the inequality gap..... Quite the opposite, they want to make it bigger.
When was the last time a non billionaire got invited to one of their conferences?
The last time that happened was in the last meeting they had. It happens in all meetings
Or a non-millionaire
This is a question I find myself asking a lot. There's a ton of systems out there but they're all flawed in a way that leads to inequality. Thanks ted ed for enlightening me
Inequality isn't a bad thing at all
Forced equality is much worse
I completely agree, the billionaires are the ones we should go after and try to tax them (50% or so) to prevent them from getting over wealthy. The issue is that most of this wealth billionaires have are in stocks (mostly of their own companies). If they take money out, than yes that can be taxed, but if not then it can not be taxed. If lets say Elon Musk sells his tesla stocks, he would not be able to make much (in comparison to his wealth) as investors would freak out that he is doing so and sell. You see that their wealth is basically fake, it is just the evaluation of their company. Their real wealth is how much cash they have on hand, which usually is lower than you might expect. When ever they need money, they just sell a couple stocks.
@VladLen that's not forced equality lmao. That's just having rules. Like for example having a cap to the maximum amount of money that can be donated to a politician by a single person/corporation idk.
@@paulmuscat2542 these rich people you're trying to tax are the same people that come up with innovations, provide us with amazing phones/electronics etc. You taxing unfairly them because they're rich (aka punishing them for their succeses) only slows down innovation and causes stagnation in technological Development.
3:21 Best moment in a TedEd I’ve seen yet
1. Taxes
2. Transfers
3. Access to education and health care
4. Addressing the digital divide
5. Addressing extreme wealth
Gosh I love TED-ED !! Keep on fighting the good fight and educating the masses !!
Don't believe everything TED-Ed shows
@@goldenvulture6818We know not everything from anywhere will be correct.
“This video is sponsored by WorldEconomicForum” ahh yes of course i love it when there is an unbiased source behind my education 🙃.
Shouldn't they make educational videos based on their worldview? Shouldn't they say that higher taxation usually funds social programmes? Should they hide their sponsorship?... Why the irony, exactly?
These people are funded by the rich. They don't care about poverty and inequality. They just care about making us feel better about being poor.
Can any of the talking points from the video be disproved with examples? I get that the WEF is unpopular, but what about the info.
@@Humanresouces a huge topic tbh but in my opinion:
capitalism is the system that so far has “worked” the best for economic growth(not that it doesn’t need Improvement)
2.I personally dont like the idea of anyone being punished for doing well through redistribution and inheritance tax because it removes incentive. For example i can’t understand why it is morally wrong to want to work hard for your children and for redistribution i dont understand why its wrong to want to work hard to build a large company. And if you are very rich ceo most of your money isn’t even going towards yourself it goes towards growing the company.
3.The choice is between unfairness and inequality and which one you personally think is the lesser of two evils. The world cannot be fair and equal just by definition.
Not saying i purely agree with one or the other just that tiptoeing into trying to create equality is very risky and needs to be done with much care as communism has shown throughout history.
i just dont like the possibility of bias in education. No they should not make videos on their worldview education should be from all perspectives. Not saying this video is bad i just dont like the “possibility” of bias sponsorship’s bring and also dont like 5:34 because it feels ironic to be sponsored and say this.
I'd say we started this idea of possession we headed down a dark path. Money is the worst form of possession to me. The idea of currency is a great way to buy and sell goods and services but it should serve us, not the other way around.
Inequality is not an issue,it is the scale of inequality and the miseries of being last in the wealth hierarchy.
“There will always be poor people in the land. That is why I am commanding you, ‘You should generously open up your hand to your afflicted and poor brother in your land.’”
(Deuteronomy 15:11)🕊️
This is a central theme of the book Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow . The question keeps changing though, because they realize the faults in the question “what are the origins of inequality”. Power imbalances and the degree to which they are prominent in any culture depends on many factors of perceived cost and value. In some cases ~ material wealth is considered very burdening or ceremonial. Material wealth has also not always been a prerequisite for social power. We just now live in a world dominated by materialist economics and seem to prefer the social/political strength it provides.
Great reference 👍 you always have to keep things in perspective and realize that there are MANY viable ways to run a society. They’re all going to have inequality, but how that inequality shakes itself out is unique to each society.
Material wealth has been a prerequisite for social power since we became settled agrarians. Agrarian societies meant owning property == owning food == ultimate power over the lives of others.
@@agilemind6241 not quite true. This is what they talked about in the book. Plenty of societies have been “settled” but not “agrarian” and others with “land ownership” not implying absolute authority. There are many instances in which these various culture traits have been separated or blended.
"Power imbalances and the degree to which they are prominent in any culture depends on many factors of perceived cost and value." No. Power imbalances are a fundamental axiom of existence, and innately unavoidable; it has little to do with perception. For all organisms, across all domains (both natural & creative), the majority of rewards and/or resources are reaped by a minority of units. This is known as the Iron Law of Oligarchy. It started out as a socio-political phenomenon until it was noted that the pattern exists across all known forms of life & energy usage. No matter the context, a few will always take the majority of resources from the many.
"Material wealth has also not always been a prerequisite for social power." It never has been, and is not today. What it *IS* today, is what it also has always been; a medium for power. It is & has never been a prerequisite, but simply another avenue for achieving it.
You reek of Marxist ideologies and all of the ignorance towards power structures that such delusions entail.
the origins of inequality are simple to understand.
Mesopotamians didn't have combine harvesters, nitrogen rich ammonia fertilizers, pvc piping or glass green houses.
5,000 years ago Ancient Near East agriculture techniques, such as human or ox powered labored plowing, were primitive compared to machinery that exist today, point is societies back then were in the minor leagues when it came to harvesting and plant science and so those ancient peoples had to ration, as population in 3rd millenium BC
was larger then the sizes of lands dedicated to farmining, in other words the quanity of mouths to feed was larger than the small field sizes dedicated to farming, small because agricultural techniques back then was weren't advanced enough to allow neolithic farmers to use more land that would be often inundated by flooding
and what arose from rationing ?
Wages.
People recieved rations of barley, wool and oil based on what labor they did.
Every economic concept that exists today from price to trade to debt to rent to mortage to ownership came from farming
When it comes to the world of investing,most people don't know where to start. Fortunately, great investors of the past and present can provide us with guidance.
And I can even say she is the sincere broker I know....
My first investment with Carol Harper gave me profit of over $80,000 Us dollar....
You can contact her with her details
👇👇
Carol Harper Fx
FB ☝️☝️
As an old student of Economics, I can confirm that this is the most accurate information about Relative Poverty and Inequality. Literally leaving no aspect of the topic..
I am from Pakistan and $1= 220 PKR right now. Pakistan is going through a deep recession right now along with massive inflation throughout the economy, including necessary products as well. Yet, our politicians usually countered this situation by the statement that we still have prices lower than the prices in US. But no one ever told them that poverty and affordability depend on both prices and incomes.
I remember about 6 months ago I did a personal research all by myself about this. I extracted the average price of one dozen eggs and the per capita income of both countries.
According to my research, an average US citizen can afford 23 dozen eggs in one meal. Whereas an average Pakistani citizen can afford only 7 eggs (not 7 dozen) in one meal.
They'd better make me the Prime Minister 😅
All hail Mr.Latif the Prime Minister!
Joke aside, that's a good explaination
@@caesar5588 yeah bro studying an Economy is so theoretical it enhances your explanation skills. I recommend every student or junior whether he is interested in Sciences, Commerce, Engineering or anything to study Economics
@@caesar5588 in the Soviet Union the lowest salary was 70 rubles per month for street sweepers while the highest salary was for the president, 800 rubles per month. and there is a wealth limit where 1 person can only have a maximum of 2 houses and 1 car
Good analysis. But what and how much u can buy is mostly a problem of your own national economic and political institutions. For a number reason ppl in US can buy more eggs than those in Pakistan.
@@newagain9964 Lol when did I say its not😅
Yes you're completely right that these things do depend on an Economy's handlers...
But resources do have an impact. Like, for example, most of the countries in the Middle East have a really good economy and very strong exchange rate because of the presence of Oil. Others like US and China rely a lot on their massive areas which allow them to build big industrial areas and lots of farming lands.
A number of reasons why Pakistan is not that good include low value addition products, major primary sector contribution, negative NX(Exports - Imports), corrupt tax system, high political instability, very percentage of dependent population, low incomes etc etc which ultimately contribute to low currency value and low GDP.
I could talk a lot more about Economics but its a rather boring subject and when talking about a country which people are not interested in further makes this comment unattractive to most🤡
The presentation in this video is probably the most enjoyable outside of myths and riddles. Really outdid yourselves here imo
th-cam.com/video/n_tn3TaHnf4/w-d-xo.html
this is a world economic forum propaganda piece but ok
Respect++ for the artist who drew this cartoons and animated it.
It is not a simple problem because until now It is still present. For me it is inevitable because in social classes we have different levels that results to inequality. Great content and by the way I love your videos.
in the Soviet Union the lowest salary was 70 rubles per month for street sweepers while the highest salary was for the president, 800 rubles per month. and there is a wealth limit where 1 person can only have a maximum of 2 houses and 1 car
I usually get a bit suspicious about videos sponsored by such big entities such as the WEF, but you made a really good point anyways here, keep it up!
I do think inequality is inevitable. I think instead of trying to get completely rid of it, our primary focus should be creating an environment where inequality doesn't directly and adversely impact people. Preventing discrimination and bias, providing access to resources is what we need to work on.
@3:15 what a funny transition in narration. Ha ha ha!!!
Graphics in this video exceptional
love you guys, you have continued to humble and teach innumerable adults throughout the years, been with y'all for ten years and its always something compelling to think about with varying propensity
The animation on this is so so so so good. The imagery metaphors are very yummy to my brain.
The WEF, which sponsored this video, is famous for having said that in the future they hope for, you will own nothing and be happy. And who will control everything? The WEF and the Billionaires and CEO's that fund it.
You forgot to mention the "millionaires"
Should be "infamous," ...not 'famous'....(?)
You are materialistic
@@eavyeavy2864 The WEF is materialistic. When we own nothing, according to their plan, who WILL own it? They hope to.
@@eavyeavy2864 You shouldn't have went to the comments section of a video discussing very material things then
The music perfectly creates a gullible context for this topic
This is a classic example of "I don't know what I am talking about, but I will still talk."
th-cam.com/video/n_tn3TaHnf4/w-d-xo.html
5:45 I love the primal figures
Indeed, that was very interesting video. In my humble opinion there is nothing wrong with moderate levels of economic inequality. Extreme economic inequality or full-blown equality are both harmful to the development of society. Perhaps it would be a little bit too moralistic, but I believe what we need is not only optimal and effective economic policy. We need to develop cultural traditions, which will instill in high-class people sense of moral duty towards society. If they have more privileges than the rest, they should also have more responsibility. It's an ancient idea, which was proposed by Confucius and Plato(Eastern and western philosophers).While it's an ancient idea, I think it's necessary foundation for our civilization, which we forgot and need to brought up again.
Absolutely right. There is a cultural narrative we tell in each country which affects this. In countries like UK and USA there is too much emphasis on celebrating the entrepreneur as if they are the pinnacle of humans and thus downplaying the fact that their riches come from the hard work of hundreds, or thousands, or millions of people around them whether they work in their companies, educated them at school, clean their streets, or looked after them when they were sick. Thus we tell ourselves a false narrative that they should not be heavily taxed or else they might stop being entrepreneurs. But I cannot believe that a entrepreneur would not be entrepreneurial if they could 'only' amass a wealth of £1billion rather than £2billion. I mean, even if they get taxed a billion pounds more they are still a billionaire with more money than they could possibly spend! We should change the narrative to say that those who have successfully created wealth were people who managed to extract the most value out of society and thus they are obliged to put more back into society in order to keep it a healthy society that can help them and their future generations stay healthy and successful. Taking value out of society and not giving some back is akin to being a vampire.
Well said. Veritasium's video "Is Success Luck or Hard Work?" made a really interesting about that. For me, he summarised really well how the mindset towards economic success all individuals should have to achieve what you described. So much so it became on of my guiding values.
The rich only serve themselves they have no moral duty towards society and they never will
EDIT: Apparently, the comment that this was replying to got deleted or hidden. To give context in case it isn't restored, it used to read:
"The rich only serve themselves they have no moral duty towards society and they never will"
The following was my answer to it.
-----------------
Let's breakdown that sentence, shall we?
By saying "the rich", it tells us that you assume that EVERY rich person that has ever existed and will ever exist suffer from that ailment.
"and they never will" tells us that you assume that no person can ever change.
"only serve themselves they have no moral duty towards society". To say this about someone is to consider them sociopathic.
So, by that entire sentence, you're saying that not only the currently alive 62.5 million millionaires of the entire world, but all that existed and will exist (around 5 million people a year in the last 5 years) are unfixable sociopaths. Which also implies that, in your opinion, to be/become rich you either need to become sociopath or already be one.
If we can find either one (1) single millionaire that does not fit your description or one (1) that managed to change the behaviours and thoughts in their life, your entire opinion falls flat. That's the price you pay for making such a bold statement without any kind of argumentation and good base behind it. It becomes extra brittle.
I'm 100% willing to hear your opinion, but unless you don't stop parroting and talking based on emotion and start bringing some logic, facts and emotionally neutral observations to the table, your points will be completely ignored by any person that is willing to seriously discuss this topic.
Source: Credit Suisse's 2022's Global Wealth Report
Nonsense
Holy cow, i was just thinking of this about 2 months ago. Societies toward inequality and the concentration of wealth at the top unless things are "shaken up" to make things more equal, typically by the government. Most people my age have been fed this very extreme capitalist ideology from a very young age. Hopefully as we get older and the more extreme it gets, more and more people see that this current system isnt working. Something needs to change. It either comes from the government finally doing something to equalize the situation, or a revolution happens to make it so.(obviously not preferred.)
And so everyone understands, a more equal society is a society that is stronger. We are the UNITED States, the more people can engage in healthy way, the better we are off.
that gold coin-scrooge McDuck analogy was too goated.🤣🐐
I think the takeaways of this video is that inequality is on a continuum, that it tends to accentuate overtime under capitalism, and that there are various policies that lower inequality and that have shown positive results for societies that implement them.
Beautiful animation and artstyle
In thermodynamics you need “inequality” or difference in energy potentials in order to do any work, a perfectly equal universe of all mass and energy being equally distributed there’s no potential energy, it’s the same thing with economies you need some inequality in order to get work done. The issue is how much inequality is the right amount and type (you want inequality to be based on hard work not something like birth), and also that number fluxes based on the context so it’s almost an impossible problem.
This makes a lot of sense!
If people are free they will not be equal, if they are equal they are not free.
It is possible to maximize economic equality and political freedom.
You’re not promised comfort or even a living. Only opportunity. Do with it as you will. Outcomes will vary.
Better explanation than many of our college teachers👍🏻
'I believe in equal opportunities but not in equal outcomes' - Naval
I love this animation style!
The animation in this video is absolutely brilliant and creative!
The animation of this video is mind blowing 🤯
Please please please. I don't want to start an argument I'm just genuinely curious. Why shouldn't the tax rate be the same for everyone? Since it's a percentage the richer you are the more you pay right so why should the tax rate be higher if you're richer?
Well the problem with fixed tax rate is that for very poor people it would get to a point where you cannot pay the necessary expenses, if we put our tax rate to avoid the previous scenario then the tax rate would be really low and not enough money would be collected. In theory it could be like that and probably has existed in the past but it is not enough to diminish wealth inequality.
Yes, Inequality is inevitable, as human society revolves all day around Power. But, this doesn't give any government an excuse to not try to lift their citizens from poverty by giving them housing, education and healthcare.
There's no profit to be made from subsidized housing, education, healthcare or food. Which should all be human rights and not commodities to be profited from.
@@jimmytimmy3680 Exactly. I shouldn't have to pay for my food, healthcare or housing. Rather, others should be forced to provide it to me. How dare a landlord demand I pay him rent, take his property and give it to me. And the nerve of farmers?? Demanding we pay them for the food they grow? Excuse me, food is my right, so I shouldn't have to pay for it.
@@stansman5461
Wow, snarky.
Have you considered Vienna’s government owned apartments? There is no profit motive, so the rent only has to pay for building maintenance, which results in much lower rents, typically about $300 per month. Also, due to the lower rents at government apartments, it pulls down the rental costs for privately owned apartments, making the cost of shelter cheaper for a large portion of the population.
The notion that the government providing support is taking money out of your pocket is naive. You are going to pay for those people regardless. You can invest a bit of money early and have them grow up to be productive members of society, or you can wait and invest that money into police and incarceration to deal with the shitheads that are a direct result of growing up in poverty.
@@jimmytimmy3680 Couldn't agree more.
I'm Indian and you are saying $300 is a low rent is a huge shock to me. Because here you can have an individual house with a garden for that same amount. IDK why the cost of living is so high in Europe?.
nice insight, also powerfull visual storyboard, love it ❤
As long as you have ambition and laziness you will have inequity. Responsibility vs the irresponsible. The ultimate right to choose your own fate, success come out of you not upon you.
A rich lazy person can stay rich. A poor lazy person stays poor.
@@Maelstromme a lazy person who became poor can change, and overcome there are examples everywhere. There are also homeless people who were once wealthy.
@@ChrisSchramm-bt8do Yes, but their success hedges on other lazy people not changing. If every lazy person decided to change, then making the choice would cease to matter. All the competition in society would become increasingly based on discriminating factors such as talent if everyone is putting in a great deal of effort and grit.
Also, there’s a such thing as a golden parachute. Once you’re into the wealthy social circles, and you have those connections- you could be incompetent as a rock and there will always be somebody to bail you out.
@@Maelstromme the goal is a dependent controllable obedient population. Refuse to participate in that BS. The successful are not your enemies, they are the example. Look all the business failures post covid, success is not guaranteed, all business people are not wealthy... they just refuse to be dependent and controllable.
@MAJORITY...RULE101
Capitalism is the most moral of economic systems. It depends on serving the customer and individual choice.
4:07 is the perfect example of our government. It takes 8 coins in taxes, 2 go to the person in need and 6 go into the bureaucratic ether.
Actually most of the money goes to the military that WE BARELY USE nowadays. Even when we do use it, the wars we fight have no good result. Iraq is a disaster filled with corruption, civil conflict, and Iraninan influence. Afghanistan is still run by the Taliban after 2 trillion dollars. We put all money and no effort.
Not everyone in the comments section is from the USA, but there is a strong truth that something which makes Americans different from much of the rest of the world is that they see themselves as displaced millionaires instead of the actual economic situation they are in. The "American dream" and that "one day my ship will come in" and get rich schemes and so forth - and you see a lot of that in the comments section.
There are significantly more vacant homes in the USA than there are homeless to fill them.
The USA trashes more food than it would take to feed the hungry (also a distribution/supply chain problem but still true).
In a nation that claims to be capitalist, the only welfare that is supported is for corporations and banks who are "too big to fail" while everyone else has to play the game. Just one of the several bailouts and tax credits given since 20008 could have provided free college education and universal healthcare and provided a universal basic income to everyone (even cutting checks to bill gates - as in everyone). This has been discussed in detail several times over, but no. We have to help corruption institutions and support the military industrial complex instead of taking care of the citizens and supporting future generations.
You're just making a random generalization about what you think Americans are like. I've never met anyone that thinks they are displaced millionaires and I highly doubt most people feel that way. That's just ridiculous. Ask any normal person that 1 on 1 directly I guarantee you NO ONE will say they feel like a displaced millionaire or that they are following the "American dream" that's so silly and unrealistic.
I'm an American and I agree. I can't believe how gullible most of my fellow white Americans are. You can't even reason with them.
I don't really care about your other points. It just sounds like a lot of buzz words and nitpicking flaws when there is a lot to appreciate in the country. But you act like the US does absolutely nothing to help its poor citizens when it actually does a ton. I grew up poor and I had almost free subsidized housing, food stamps, college completely paid for, and more. The US has PLENTY of welfare. A lot of which doesn't get factored in when calculating the wealth if the lower classes. Which yes their income might be lower but they also have lots of programs that help dramatically increase their quality of life that doesn't directly tie in to income. The US does A LOT for its poor. Also homelessness in Amerkca isn't at all a housing issue its a mental health issues our main issue is offering help for those dealing with addictions and mental issues. By far the biggest reason for prolonged homelessness. Homelessness in the US due to poverty is very small and is usually temporary ad there are lots of support systems out there for those who are willing to reach out for help and are obviously sane enough to work with.
@@geralferald Yeah things were pretty good for the poor before George W. Bush and the Great Recession. The good days are gone now. Now here in the 21st century, the smart poor people read and admire Karl Marx and the ones who don't like to read books above a 6th or 7th grade reading level or have deep conversations join the far right wing extremists and attack the Capitol. The poor are so much worse off nowadays that they've become extremists. It's a sight to behold!!!!
Yes. It can be enforced for a while but not sustained.
What about everyone being dead. I fail to see how not existing can be inequal.
@@j100j yes inexistence is the ultimate singularity ultimate EQUALITY which we all will go either by crying at our death ads or happy. So id say keep the show going as long as we can.
Thank you very much for sharing knowledge. The animation work is great as well! =)
It’s tough to deny that inequality seems built into our systems, but I don’t think it has to be that way. While some level of difference is natural, the extreme gaps we see today are largely driven by policy choices and societal values. We can change things if we push for fairer systems that prioritize education, healthcare, and opportunities for everyone. It’s all about creating a level playing field, because we have the power to challenge these norms and work toward a more equitable future.
Inequality is inevitable, injustice is not.
This especially includes that people who need additional money (for example people with impairments need more resources than others) have the opportunity to participate in the social, cultural and political sphere of their environment.
Agreed
Yes. It is. Equality of opportunity should be the goal. Not everyone possesses drive, passion, work ethic, etc. And usually it is the people that do possess those that succeed financially. Those same people may have very flawed personal relationships. There are trade offs to everything.
No one asks for perfect equality. We just ask for no one possessing 300 billion dollars while others don’t have anything, for no one to earn 15 millions a year when others earn 1000, and no one to inherit fortunes they did nothing to deserve while others inherit nothing because they didn’t hit the jackpot at birth.
I am fine with someone more hard working and lucky to earn 4 times what i earn. I am not fine for anyone to earn 10 000 times what i earn.
A short Google Scholar search shows that there's growing evidence that early human societies were egalitarian. There have also been egalitarian tribes and peoples throughout history, though many of these were erased by imperialists or rivals. By this point in history, we should know well enough as humans that equality should be the norm. But special interests continue to try to convince us that that's an impossible dream.
This partnership with WEF and videos made based on their pro-billionaire views has been beyond concerning, to the point that I sadly don't think I can watch TED-Ed any longer. I've found enough other great creators to make up for what I'll be missing here.
For anyone else interested, creators like Khadija Mbowe, Crash Course, F.D. Signifier, Forrest Valkai, Bad Astra, CJ the X, and Overly Sarcastic Productions all make great informative stuff.
yeah sure, how enlightening
"[...] were erased by imperialists or rivals." Do you even see the irony in your statement?
I agree! It was dismaying to see capitalist propaganda on this channel
Yes indeed. Humanity didn't really come to know the inequality that even approaches current day inequality up until the advent of farming.
But you have to see the issue with your logic. You're basically arguing for egalitarian, but stagnant (or slow-developing) societies. Where everyone is the same, but the standard of living is lower and increases at a slow pace, if at all. That's not desirable - at least in my opinion; yours can differ, of course. But in my mind, it is much better to have a less equal society where everyone, including the bottom rung, is better off and can live a better life, than a fully equal society that lives in desolate, squalid conditions.
After all, that's what your statement "erased by rivals" implies. The societies that were able to advance and develop more quickly are the ones that win out, after all.
Now tell me: would you truly rather live in an unequal, but advanced society that has all of the amenities of the modern world (ranging from modern healthcare, to education, to the internet, to countless other things that make your life healthier, easier, and more fulfilling to live), or in a fully egalitarian, but undeveloped and primitive society where people still die in their 30s and have to live like animals, where even the best-off person is still poorer than the poorest person in the advanced society?
I know that is an extreme example. But taken over a long time scale and complete isolation from one another (i.e. the more powerful rival can't conquer, influence, or "erase" the other), that's what would happen. One society would have equality but no development, and the other would have development but no equality.
In the end, I will always pick development over equality. I'd rather live in a world where everyone has a nice life, even if the richest person has a million times as much as the poorest, than one where everyone suffers, but is equal in their suffering.
Viewers should note that this video should be viewed as a persuasive, rather than merely informative, video. It is motivated my more than merely explaining all the facts objectively
The sponsor of this video, the World Economic Forum, holds the narrative laid out in its video as among its core principles. This video outlines only one telling of world events. In practice, many narrative assumptions made in this video are contested
even if it is achievable, there’s always one person that will ruin it for everybody.
Inequality is a a value that is stored in the equation of the universe and you being here means it's also stored there.
wow that's like so deep man, heavy
@@mobilemarshall so you did quite understand
I have no problem with people richer or poorer than me. I only have problems with people trying to tax me
Inequality is an inevitable consequence of neo liberal capitalism. It is a system that foster accumulation over repartition. In this paradigm, some people will always have too much when others will have nothing.
To quote the Shakespearian depths of writing that is The Purge franchise, "There have always been the haves and the have-nots. It is the way of things"
The problem with only scratching the surface, Ted, is it becomes the entire "surface bearer" when there is no follow-up to topics like inequality...
Now I wonder how moneyless societies would fit on the Gini scale since people didn't have "incomes" or "wages".
They acquired and distributed resources collectively. Wouldn't that be "equality" in the economic sense?
I think honestly the only truly equal society that would exist wouldn’t have any form of money. Sort of like Star Trek i suppose
He explained a lot of things beautifully.
Hands down best Ted Ed animation so far
I wish TED-Ed was my teacher back in school. ❤🔥
Don't believe everything you read, hear or see...including Ted-Ed videos.
I enjoyed this video! Beautiful animation and interesting content
yet another wonderfully produced video from ted ed.
Love Ted-Ed. Not a socialist; let alone a commie. Hated this...
...Maybe the clue was the screen that said "Made in Partnership with World Economic Forum"...