/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Like most things in mainstream economics, it's just a trend observation with zero predictive power or any kind of explanation with a grounded theoretical basis behind its underlying mechanics. It's completely useless and meaningless for anyone outside of the dismal science.

>>461548
What percentage of threads on leftychan do you reckon are made by the same small subset of visitors?
>Muh predictive power
I predict you'll cry and whine more, presenting yourself as hyper intelligent and an amazing creative agent, all while creating next to no threads or media.
>Omg you're just noticing trends
Duh lol

>>461554
>"noticing" unrelated statistical trends
Duh, indeed.

>>461616
Did you make a thread yet?

>>461624
Yes. Have you made one that wasn't about the disingenuous misuse of statistics?

>>461653
>You made it it to the 20% of visitors who create 80% of threads. Congrats.

But…. Was it one of the 20% of threads that garner 80% of replies….?

>>461645
Those are invariably the shittiest threads. They are about internet celebrities, arguing with rightards, and what is and is not idpol.

>>461546
the number of places you'll find pareto distributions/zipf's law keeps me up at night. hell if i know what it means, hopefully not that social equality is physically or mathematically impossible

>>461753
Equality is impossible
>Find a place where equality exists

Protip: you can't

>>461754
Piss off, Kant.

>>461546
>What are the political implications of the pareto principle
Probably nothing.

>Does fact that 80% of impact/results stem from 20% of agents explain the inherent inequality of the world.
Nope not a fact, a falsehood. The working class is the majority of the world (around 90% of the population), and that majority is generating basically all the economic surplus. The fact that about 3% are able to accumulate most of the wealth, is just a tendency of market-economics. If you implement a different economic model you get a different wealth distribution.

>Is this necessarily a bad thing

Yes high inequality is necessarily a bad thing. The only way to get really wealthy is to make others poor. The only way to uphold high inequality is political repression. Most of the despair and misery in this world is imposed by design to uphold the political and economic machinery that exploits workers, This exploitation is where the wealth of the wealthy comes from. It's possible to have an economic system where people would be free, and not have to suffer, but such a system could not generate high inequality. There simply is no way where the wealthy can steal all that surplus without brutalizing people and beating them into submission, nobody gives up the fruit of their labor willingly.

>it just a thing that is devoid of value but should simply be accounted for?
No

The wealth and poverty are different sides of the same coin. Great wealth is created by wealth-transfer from the many to the few. It is theft. It's an extremely violent crime.

High economic inequality goes against species being of humanity, that is why this unnatural and artificial construct is imposed with such an extreme amount of violence and an unfathomably huge death toll. Consider all the billions of people that are dead because their means for survival were locked behind a paywall, consider billions more who suffer a precarious life. If you don't condemn economic inequality you are supporting a system that creates mass-death and mass suffering at a scale far greater than war.

It is impossible to fathom how any human being could look at a horror of this magnitude without disgust and rage. It's not possible to just dispassionately account for this.

Only reactionary boot-lickers attempt to rationalize something so horrendous that it can't ever be rationalized.

>>461789
Based Anon DESTROYS Marxist SJW Cuck Using FACTS

>>461548
>it's just a trend observation with zero predictive power or any kind of explanation with a grounded theoretical basis behind its underlying mechanics
Exactly.

>>461546
If the pareto principle was true, it does not allow for any optimization, because it would be an emergent property of a system.
In other words if you were to eliminate the less impactful 80% of the agents, it would follow that 80% of the remaining agents would have 4% of the former impact and total impact would decrease by 80%.

meesa think pareetoo is pseudoo sciency stuff

Even women can't escape it…

>>461884
>meesa think pareetoo is pseudoo sciency stuff
That is true, but that doesn't stop the pseuds from pushing it.

>>464771
Are you one of the 20% of visitors responsible for 80% of posts here?