Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Take a look at the technology changes of the last 50 years. How much of it was invented/designed/initially brought to market by the US? ( I don't mean this as a boast, just looking at the scorecard.) That's because of our inequal system, which allows nobodies to excel, (if they have the will and the ability) in a system that is driven to take the new/creative and make money off of it. Our open/outlier/referee/individual responsibilty culture had led to all sorts of new ideas/technologies/methods that, while many are economic, not all are. And any discusion about the American culture needs to include the good, as well as the bad...
|
Indubitably. My point isn't so much that I don't appreciate those good sides, my point is that I doubt the specific level of inequality that exists is the only one that provides sufficient "incentives" for these inventors to be motivated to do what they do. (To be somewhat polemical: Why are they only happy when other people suffer in order for them to be paid "adequately"?)
The question that remains unanswered (or unanswerable) is how much of that inequality was
necessary in order to ensure that this innovation happens, and trying to balance equality against incentives. If you can have the same inventions either way, why prefer the system in which inequality is greater? And considering, say, how your current healtcare system costs about 2x what the next-most expensive one does (Germany's, I believe), with the Germans having a higher being
healthier, (as a first indication: a life expectancy that is 1.5-2.5 years higher)fixing that alone would allow you to provide good health care for 2-3x the people you do now at the same cost.