It might also be that the successful people established cultural (ritual) and technical means to substantially monopolize power, turning the envy tax into the opposite direction (the rich exploiting the poor), and the next step is most likely just making it hereditary. Can this also be a stable equilibrium?
ONLY if and as the richer society is able to gain and exercise control over its space. If it is prohibited from that, bloodshed is the ONLY remaining means available to the society for its self-preservation.
So wealth redistribution apparatus is the culprit stifling growth? Bryan, we live in one of the most egalitarian age. Let me remind you that slavery was the norm for most of history and that slavery is indicative of the deepest wealth disparity when humans slip into the category of wealth itself. What is progress really if not the fact that we can live in a culture and society where we aren't slaves?
While I am not a fan of wealth redistribution, attributing to it the source of our discontents is short sighted. On some level, such redistribution is necessary to an extent, noblesse/wealth obliges and whatnot.
I don't think envy taxes (at least the way you defined them based on Tyler Cowen's experience) apply above a certain status level in highly complex societies. The village head might be subject to an "envy tax" that forces him to share his wealth with the whole village, but a King is not. A king gets to decide how much of his wealth (royal assets, crown lands, whatever) he shares with the whole kingdom and how much he (justifiably) spends on his royal needs.
You could say that the king is cheating. He has accountants and a whole bureaucracy to help him make sure that as much money goes out as it comes in, and avoid "[using] their own money to cover the expense" or "use all their savings in order to complete their terms", as Cowen puts it.
But that offers an obvious solution to the distressed village head. Become a bean counter. Don't do favors; make grants. Don't feed family X; give them food from the village granary. Don't fix the village church; run a restoration project funded by the church benefice.
It might also be that the successful people established cultural (ritual) and technical means to substantially monopolize power, turning the envy tax into the opposite direction (the rich exploiting the poor), and the next step is most likely just making it hereditary. Can this also be a stable equilibrium?
Might be simpler to list envy as one of the dozens of negative headwinds to progress.
Disagree. It is the MAIN headwind. Including vicarious envy (redistributionism).
Off the top of my head…
Rent seeking
Resistance to change
Complexity accumulation
Malthusian forces
Resource depletion
External predators
Internal parasites
Bureaucracy
Not invented here
Clannishness
Collectivism
Racism
Religious taboos
Zero sum mindset
Incumbency
Disdain for work
I could go on and on.
Nice list. Ranked, I assume (I ranked mine).
The richer, more powerful societies should be able to conquer the others with little bloodshed.
ONLY if and as the richer society is able to gain and exercise control over its space. If it is prohibited from that, bloodshed is the ONLY remaining means available to the society for its self-preservation.
Immigration, anyone? Segregation? Slavery?
So wealth redistribution apparatus is the culprit stifling growth? Bryan, we live in one of the most egalitarian age. Let me remind you that slavery was the norm for most of history and that slavery is indicative of the deepest wealth disparity when humans slip into the category of wealth itself. What is progress really if not the fact that we can live in a culture and society where we aren't slaves?
While I am not a fan of wealth redistribution, attributing to it the source of our discontents is short sighted. On some level, such redistribution is necessary to an extent, noblesse/wealth obliges and whatnot.
I don't think envy taxes (at least the way you defined them based on Tyler Cowen's experience) apply above a certain status level in highly complex societies. The village head might be subject to an "envy tax" that forces him to share his wealth with the whole village, but a King is not. A king gets to decide how much of his wealth (royal assets, crown lands, whatever) he shares with the whole kingdom and how much he (justifiably) spends on his royal needs.
You could say that the king is cheating. He has accountants and a whole bureaucracy to help him make sure that as much money goes out as it comes in, and avoid "[using] their own money to cover the expense" or "use all their savings in order to complete their terms", as Cowen puts it.
But that offers an obvious solution to the distressed village head. Become a bean counter. Don't do favors; make grants. Don't feed family X; give them food from the village granary. Don't fix the village church; run a restoration project funded by the church benefice.
We even see this in the way rural areas envy the urban areas