Is the new global buzzword for leftists.
They do not care that poverty has been as good as eliminated globally thanks to markets (aka capitalism), they want to rag on about inequality (which socialism assures btw; both economic and political), even “the poor” are so much better off than they were in the past (better clothes, cars, phones, TVs, housing etc.) that the remaining economic inequality does not really matter to them; yet the power lusting, divisive socialists keep ragging on about inequality, in the hope that it will catch on. Whether people are concerned about economic inequality or not, they are badgered about it continually, perhaps in the hope they’ll vote for the socialists, in the hope that once they get absolute power, they’ll shut up about it? Makes sense, since political power is all politicians crave. When they’ve won the elections, they already have the delicious, absolute power they yearned for, so no reason to keep going on about it. Then for the next elections (if those’ll be held at all, and if they’ll be open to parties other than the socialist one(s)), they’ll come up with another lame fashionable excuse to vote for them. Actually, elections after they’ve won and ruled for a term, will prove to be hard for them, since all they know is to complain about the results of their wishes having come true.
Can’t do it
Of course, #socialism can’t result in economic #equality. Socialism’s raison d’être is to produce #political #inequality, in order to centralize absolute #power.
Political inequality will assure economic inequality, because businesses will seek favor with those in power (politicians) (this is called lobbying). So the inequality that socialists promote so passionately, will only lead to economic inequality.
Example: the well fed #Stalin riding in the backseat of his chauffeured limo, while the people were ordered to practice marching for the celebration of the revolution, on an empty stomach.
In a free #market, the people may decide for themselves how their money is spent (if at all), so instead of lobbyists inluencing their masters how (on who) their money is to be spent (which businesses offer the most attractive backhanders/post-politics career opportunities/campaign contributions), the people are to be persuaded themselves, imagine sending one lobbyist after millions of people / instead of after one or two politicians. This is how #minarchism / #anarchism assures equality, and only societies without centrallized power can do so.
Because power is democratized
When the people are attracted to a certain product (like bread), or are not attracted to a certain product (like bread), they can choose to buy it or not. If they choose to not buy it, the producers will have to find our why not, and see if they can meet the desires of those customers, then try to convince these customers, that purchasing the products, will improve the customer’s lives enough for him to make it worth spending his money on the products.
If power and money are centralized
The milk seas and butter mountains of the EU will reoccur; farming lobyists will beg for subsidies, those subsidies will come with requirements to meet certain production quotas, farmers will want to get those subsidies, so they produce more than the market will ask for/consume.
To prevent this from happening again, some farmers are even paid to not produce anything; they have police inspections to see if they don’t secretly produce anything, then receive the money they would have made if they HAD worked for their living. So their fertile farm land lays unused (except as a tourist trap). All of that’s paid for by the tax victim, who is unable to influence that, because the glorious leaders have decided it is to be so¹.
Cancelling subsidies will result in complaints that the regulations make it so hard for farmers to survive, so they need to be compensated for the cost of meeting those regulations. The obvious answer isn’t to soldier on down the wrong path, but to stop imoposing regulations at all.
But without regulations, the farms will maintain harmful practices, that deplete the soil (so farming stuff just to throw it away doesn’t deplete the soil?) and mistreat animals!
Actually, it may still be possible to create guidelines, and the closer a farm gets to meeting the guidelines, the higher the price people will be willing to pay for the products. If there comes a point when the size of the premium exceeds the people’s willingness to pay the premium, either the guidelines have become ridiculous, or the people’s ability to pay has reached a ceiling.
That’s called #democracy.
(And no central planner can ever compute this for all citizens, btw)
¹) In the meantime, elsewhere in the world, people starve to death. How’s that for equality?