...in practical terms, [indifference to extreme inequality] is bound to destroy the social cohesion on which democracy – or, indeed, any type of peaceful, contented society – ultimately rests.Read it at Project Syndicate
The Bad Society
by Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in both history and economics, is a working member of the British House of Lords.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI won't revolt if I have 2 yachts and 3 mansions while the wealthiest have 20 yachts 30 mansions.
ReplyDeleteIt's isn't inequality I'm concerned about, since I know I am not the same as others in terms of productivity, drive, ability, and desires.
What if someone WANTS to live like an ascetic?
Those who complain about inequality have to look at the source of the inequality. Inequality per se is not an evil. Railing against the concept of inequality and wanting the state to use force to stop natural inequality is really a jealousy turned into rage.
you have a simpleton's view of the world
ReplyDelete"The growth of inequality leaves ideological defenders of capitalism unfazed. In a competitive market system, people are said to be paid what they are worth: so top CEOs add 263 times more value to the American economy than the workers they employ. But the poor, it is claimed, are still better off than they would have been had the gap been artificially narrowed by trade unions or governments. The only secure way to get “trickle-down” wealth to trickle faster is by cutting marginal tax rates still further, or, alternatively, by improving the “human capital” of the poor, so that they become worth more to their employers.
ReplyDeleteThis is a method of economic reasoning that is calculated to appeal to those at the top of the income pyramid. After all, there is no way whatsoever to calculate the marginal products of different individuals in cooperative productive activities. Top pay rates are simply fixed by comparing them to other top pay rates in similar jobs."
Perhaps you should read the article, Major.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteyou have a simpleton's view of the world
It's actually a lot more nuanced than the "DERP! THEY HAVE MORE GOODIES THAN ME! IT'S NOT FAIR! RAGE!" that is the translation of all individuality (inequality) hater view.
y:
This is a method of economic reasoning that is calculated to appeal to those at the top of the income pyramid.
Marxist polylogist nonsense.
I am not at the top, and I know that I am better off materially when others not me are as free as they can get when it comes to economic competition and producing for the mass market. I am most benefited by this, even if the outcome is that some people produce so much that they produce and earn 263 times more than me.
After all, there is no way whatsoever to calculate the marginal products of different individuals in cooperative productive activities.
Not unless each individual is free to compete, free to produce and earn, and free to own means of production.
"Cooperative societies" require initiations of violence from some final authority in order to stop individuals from being their own boss, and competing with others, individual entrepreneurs or cooperatives.
Top pay rates are simply fixed by comparing them to other top pay rates in similar jobs.
Yes, compensation is determined by competitive factors. Their labor is so valuable that no business will pay less or else those people will jet to the other companies.
Perhaps you should read the article, Major.
I did read the article, y.
Please do not infer my lack of agreeing with it, that I didn't read it. That is what simple minded fools who believe everything they read that feels good would believe.
I still don't see what the problem with inequality it, other than jealousy and resentment from those who have less than others.
"It's actually a lot more nuanced than the "DERP! THEY HAVE MORE GOODIES THAN ME! IT'S NOT FAIR! RAGE!" that is the translation of all individuality (inequality) hater view."
ReplyDeleteYou only think that because you are a simpleton. Your comments prove my observation.
"Not unless each individual is free to compete, free to produce and earn, and free to own means of production."
You don't appear to understand that Skidelsky was referring to conditions within companies when he used the term "cooperative productive activities".
"I still don't see what the problem with inequality it, other than jealousy and resentment from those who have less than others."
Because you're a simpleton. Yes if one guy only has one yacht and the other has two yachts that's an inequality no one in their right mind would care about. That's not the sort of inequality rational people are concerned with.
MF,
ReplyDeleteThe issue seems to boil down to one of 'equality' vs one of 'fairness'.
Equality is a simple easy to determine math relationship.
Fairness is not.
Many morons are misled into thinking a system is fair when they don't have the ability to fully understand its operations.
The system is rigged and corrupt but the morons instead believe contrary falsehoods about 'freedom' and the like. The inherent unfairness directly leads to the unequal distribution we
witness, this is a simply math.
If the system was 'fair' , the distributional results would not be as lumpy.
Rsp
A purely economic analysis leaves out fairness as non-existent or irrelevant. That's why economics as a pseudo-scientific system is useless for policy and why political economy is needed.
ReplyDeleteAn economy is the material life-support system of a society. Societies are biological. Biology, anthropology, and sociology reveals that fairness is a key component of interaction and cognitive science is beginning to show why that is in terms of, e.g., mirror neurons.
Animals whose DNA structure is closest to humans are especially tuned to fairness in social interaction. Perceived fairness leads to harmony and unfairness leads to discord.
This is an aspectt of the free rider problem. Leaners and cheaters are obvious free riders but those who use excessive leverage to gain advantage are seen as free riders too. Ricardo identified this as economic rent, i.e., unearned gain where "earn" involves productive contribution instead of extraction.