World News

I would challenge that any society which has any significant amount of wealth disparity wouldn't eventually devolve into "whoever makes the most money gets to make the rules". Money is an abstraction of human value, so if one person has significantly more abstract-value than most people, their power and influence will always be more than people who have less even if it isn't as direct as our system via eg lobbying. On top of that, any economic system which has even the slightest asymptotic behavior towards wealth consolidation will eventually have wealth disparity.

Personally I like economic systems that use money as a price signal because of how decentralized it can be, but I'm not sure how you would avoid these tendencies without some major overhaul in the fundamental principles. Market socialism is at least better, since no one solely owns the means of production so it's harder to accumulate wealth but I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't possible at all.

Maybe a change in ethos like you said, competition can inspire innovation but it can also lead to tremendous waste as competitors reinvent their own wheels. Encouraging cooperation in tandem with competition could produce a more well-rounded society, but there will always be sociopaths who want power for its own sake and will naturally rise to the top and ruin whatever good thing we have going on. Maybe something like radical anarchism, which rejects (unjustified) hierarchy and makes it exceptionally difficult for anyone to gain coercive power? Fat chance ever implementing something like that, though.

You'd be surprised by how much seemingly obvious folk wisdom turns out to be bullshit when scrutiny is applied. It's good to test the basics, as it can clear up faulty assumptions later. Anti-poor rhetoric is a staple of right-wing propaganda, so it's nice to have research on our side.

The thing with science is that you can't just accept things because they seem obvious. The scientific method exists for a reason. Sometimes things that look obvious turn out to be false, and sometimes proving an obvious thing to be true is a necessary first step to have a solid foundation from which to build other more nuanced hypotheses. Either way, the point is that studies aren't all about finding some new and surprising conclusion. Sometimes they're about taking something you were pretty sure of already, and making it into actual science.

Yes, in fact it's the most obvious things which need scientific study most desperately, because what's "obvious" today may tomorrow be "cigarettes are good for your health". If something is obvious (and isn't a value or opinion), that's a red flag that you should double-check because it might be an overlooked assumption rather than an objective truth. That being said it's not exactly "sexy" science since the result tends to be "our hypothesis was correct". The Ig Nobel Prize has some good example of this, dumb "obvious" or "pointless" research that on further reflection makes you think.

In addition to what others have said, this paper serves to directly address a very common talking point.

It's more like we have a hundred years of studies that make this point, but it's always good to test for different causes of inequality to inform policy better.