I could sympathize with the frustration, but I feel like I’m being attacked in a way that’s pretty unfair.
This question seems to presume that I have “one single source, that’s so good that I could just link to it and the debate would mostly be over.” That’s clearly not the way most people work. There’s a whole lot of points some people might assume is common knowledge within a certain community, to some extent, for the purpose of making other points, but that doesn’t come with one incredibly clean paper.
I find your other papers you linked in other comments interesting. That said, I don’t see them changing my main argument much.
I could sympathize with the frustration, but I feel like I’m being attacked in a way that’s pretty unfair.
Sorry if my previous comment came across as rude or harsh—that wasn’t my intention. I didn’t mean to attack you. I asked those questions to clarify your exact claim because I wanted to understand it fully and potentially challenge it depending on its interpretation. My intent was for constructive disagreement, not criticism of you personally.
I find your other papers you linked in other comments interesting. That said, I don’t see them changing my main argument much.
Your main argument started with and seemed to depend heavily on the idea that inequality has been increasing. If it turns out that this key assumption is literally incorrect, then it seems like that should significantly affect your argument.
Thanks. I tried adjusting the opening of this argument accordingly.
I don’t expect at the time that this point was that contentious within our community. I was naively thinking, “this point is broadly assumed to be true, and would help provide context for my main point.” I also believed/believe that it was true, but I’d agree with you that there are a lot of specific interpretations of it that wouldn’t be true.
It seems like there are interesting debates to be had here of “How should we think about inequality? What aspects of the world are become more or less equal? What measures are the most important?” I think this does get fairly far from my main topic, though at the same time, I’m happy to see that get discussed either here or elsewhere, as long as it could be understood that it’s very arguably a only-partially-related point.
From what I can tell, it very much seems the case that some important measures of inequality are both increasing and very high (the high is probably more important), and also that other important measures might be constant/low/decreasing.
I suspect that commenters here have much stronger feelings about “is inequality increasing?” than they do “does the top 0.1% of the global elite have an incredibly large amount of wealth?”
I could sympathize with the frustration, but I feel like I’m being attacked in a way that’s pretty unfair.
This question seems to presume that I have “one single source, that’s so good that I could just link to it and the debate would mostly be over.” That’s clearly not the way most people work. There’s a whole lot of points some people might assume is common knowledge within a certain community, to some extent, for the purpose of making other points, but that doesn’t come with one incredibly clean paper.
I find your other papers you linked in other comments interesting. That said, I don’t see them changing my main argument much.
Sorry if my previous comment came across as rude or harsh—that wasn’t my intention. I didn’t mean to attack you. I asked those questions to clarify your exact claim because I wanted to understand it fully and potentially challenge it depending on its interpretation. My intent was for constructive disagreement, not criticism of you personally.
Your main argument started with and seemed to depend heavily on the idea that inequality has been increasing. If it turns out that this key assumption is literally incorrect, then it seems like that should significantly affect your argument.
Thanks. I tried adjusting the opening of this argument accordingly.
I don’t expect at the time that this point was that contentious within our community. I was naively thinking, “this point is broadly assumed to be true, and would help provide context for my main point.” I also believed/believe that it was true, but I’d agree with you that there are a lot of specific interpretations of it that wouldn’t be true.
It seems like there are interesting debates to be had here of “How should we think about inequality? What aspects of the world are become more or less equal? What measures are the most important?” I think this does get fairly far from my main topic, though at the same time, I’m happy to see that get discussed either here or elsewhere, as long as it could be understood that it’s very arguably a only-partially-related point.
From what I can tell, it very much seems the case that some important measures of inequality are both increasing and very high (the high is probably more important), and also that other important measures might be constant/low/decreasing.
I suspect that commenters here have much stronger feelings about “is inequality increasing?” than they do “does the top 0.1% of the global elite have an incredibly large amount of wealth?”