Comments on: Putting More on the Table Brings People With More to the Table http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Will Wilkinson / The Fly Bottle » Blog Archive » Why Do Economists Care About Inequality? http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7805 Will Wilkinson / The Fly Bottle » Blog Archive » Why Do Economists Care About Inequality? Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:15:02 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7805 [...] Whether we should be morally worried about inequality depends on its sources. But then the real worry is the source of inequality, not inequality per se (though the resulting inequality may exacerbate or consolidate the original injustice.) If inequality is based in predation, then the moral worry is predation. In a system like ours rife with corporate welfare, some people do get rich off political predation. (I can see K St. from where I’m sitting!) I don’t know how many of the top 1% (that both includes Krugman and makes him insane with indignation) got there through rent-seeking. Maybe a lot, but certainly not all the software millionaires, and all those entertainment and sports stars. Anyway, as I’ve mentioned before, redoubling our efforts Krugman-style to take more money from the rich through the political system is mostly an effective way of providing the rich with an incentive to put more money into the political system to prevent having even more taken. It is in principle possible for the people with the least leverage and weakest incentive to bend the political system to their will,  just as it is in principle possible for a dog to catch its tail. The only option for separating money and political power is to reduce the desirability of political power by reducing its scope and effectiveness. My guess is that constraints on government power, such that the rich would have less incentive to try and dominate it, would lead to more people having enough, but perhaps even greater inequality.    [...] [...] Whether we should be morally worried about inequality depends on its sources. But then the real worry is the source of inequality, not inequality per se (though the resulting inequality may exacerbate or consolidate the original injustice.) If inequality is based in predation, then the moral worry is predation. In a system like ours rife with corporate welfare, some people do get rich off political predation. (I can see K St. from where I’m sitting!) I don’t know how many of the top 1% (that both includes Krugman and makes him insane with indignation) got there through rent-seeking. Maybe a lot, but certainly not all the software millionaires, and all those entertainment and sports stars. Anyway, as I’ve mentioned before, redoubling our efforts Krugman-style to take more money from the rich through the political system is mostly an effective way of providing the rich with an incentive to put more money into the political system to prevent having even more taken. It is in principle possible for the people with the least leverage and weakest incentive to bend the political system to their will,  just as it is in principle possible for a dog to catch its tail. The only option for separating money and political power is to reduce the desirability of political power by reducing its scope and effectiveness. My guess is that constraints on government power, such that the rich would have less incentive to try and dominate it, would lead to more people having enough, but perhaps even greater inequality.    [...]

]]> By: MDM http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7804 MDM Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:40:51 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7804 Will, Nice post. Two things that might be added to your analysis. First, there is, of course, the "Bootleggers and Baptists" dynamic. Once egalitarian/public interest claims are taken as a valid reasons to increase the size, scope, and power of the state, there is an incentive to use this rhetoric as a cover for rent-seeking.Second, I think for at least some redistributivist egalitarians, democratic politics is seen as the realm of cooperation, whereas the market is seen as the realm of zero-sum conflict. Thus playing the statecraft game may seem like a better bet for registering the voices of the weak, whereas the marketplace is seen as the realm of the strong. Thus Chomsky the "anarchist," for instance, has advocated an increase in the power of the federal gov't and prefers gov't agencies to corporations ("private tyrannies") on the grounds that at least gov't agencies are open to democratic accountability, while private firms are not. Go figure. Will,
Nice post. Two things that might be added to your analysis. First, there is, of course, the “Bootleggers and Baptists” dynamic. Once egalitarian/public interest claims are taken as a valid reasons to increase the size, scope, and power of the state, there is an incentive to use this rhetoric as a cover for rent-seeking.Second, I think for at least some redistributivist egalitarians, democratic politics is seen as the realm of cooperation, whereas the market is seen as the realm of zero-sum conflict. Thus playing the statecraft game may seem like a better bet for registering the voices of the weak, whereas the marketplace is seen as the realm of the strong. Thus Chomsky the “anarchist,” for instance, has advocated an increase in the power of the federal gov’t and prefers gov’t agencies to corporations (“private tyrannies”) on the grounds that at least gov’t agencies are open to democratic accountability, while private firms are not. Go figure.

]]> By: MDM http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7812 MDM Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:40:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7812 Will, Nice post. Two things that might be added to your analysis. First, there is, of course, the "Bootleggers and Baptists" dynamic. Once egalitarian/public interest claims are taken as a valid reasons to increase the size, scope, and power of the state, there is an incentive to use this rhetoric as a cover for rent-seeking.Second, I think for at least some redistributivist egalitarians, democratic politics is seen as the realm of cooperation, whereas the market is seen as the realm of zero-sum conflict. Thus playing the statecraft game may seem like a better bet for registering the voices of the weak, whereas the marketplace is seen as the realm of the strong. Thus Chomsky the "anarchist," for instance, has advocated an increase in the power of the federal gov't and prefers gov't agencies to corporations ("private tyrannies") on the grounds that at least gov't agencies are open to democratic accountability, while private firms are not. Go figure. Will,
Nice post. Two things that might be added to your analysis. First, there is, of course, the “Bootleggers and Baptists” dynamic. Once egalitarian/public interest claims are taken as a valid reasons to increase the size, scope, and power of the state, there is an incentive to use this rhetoric as a cover for rent-seeking.Second, I think for at least some redistributivist egalitarians, democratic politics is seen as the realm of cooperation, whereas the market is seen as the realm of zero-sum conflict. Thus playing the statecraft game may seem like a better bet for registering the voices of the weak, whereas the marketplace is seen as the realm of the strong. Thus Chomsky the “anarchist,” for instance, has advocated an increase in the power of the federal gov’t and prefers gov’t agencies to corporations (“private tyrannies”) on the grounds that at least gov’t agencies are open to democratic accountability, while private firms are not. Go figure.

]]> By: It looks obvious http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7803 It looks obvious Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:15:36 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7803 <strong>The Domino Effect...</strong> Recently I wrote about the circular logic used by those who embrace greater government involvement in many aspects of our life. I argued that when you allow government involvement for causes you agree with you open the door for all other set of gover... The Domino Effect…

Recently I wrote about the circular logic used by those who embrace greater government involvement in many aspects of our life. I argued that when you allow government involvement for causes you agree with you open the door for all other set of gover…

]]> By: Antimeta http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7802 Antimeta Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:22:13 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7802 <strong>Blogging as a Tool for Philosophical Discourse: the State of the Art...</strong> Next week in Portland, I'll be on a panel with Jonathan Kvanvig, Gillian Russell, and Brian Weatherson, with the title as above. Since Brian has already said something about what he'll say, I figured I'll post a bit as well,...... Blogging as a Tool for Philosophical Discourse: the State of the Art…

Next week in Portland, I’ll be on a panel with Jonathan Kvanvig, Gillian Russell, and Brian Weatherson, with the title as above. Since Brian has already said something about what he’ll say, I figured I’ll post a bit as well,……

]]> By: Robert Schwartz http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7801 Robert Schwartz Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:47:51 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7801 In the Soviet Union, they were called the Nomenklatura. In the Soviet Union, they were called the Nomenklatura.

]]> By: Robert Schwartz http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7811 Robert Schwartz Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:47:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7811 In the Soviet Union, they were called the Nomenklatura. In the Soviet Union, they were called the Nomenklatura.

]]> By: BillKorner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7800 BillKorner Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:25:29 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7800 The idea that all liberals (and at least some non-liberals) are egalitarian is not original to Schmidtz or any of the Cato bloggers. One of the more comprehensive recent works that explores that idea is Amartya Sen's "Inequality Reexamined". Did anybody cite that? The idea that all liberals (and at least some non-liberals) are egalitarian is not original to Schmidtz or any of the Cato bloggers. One of the more comprehensive recent works that explores that idea is Amartya Sen’s “Inequality Reexamined”. Did anybody cite that?

]]> By: BillKorner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7810 BillKorner Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:25:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7810 The idea that all liberals (and at least some non-liberals) are egalitarian is not original to Schmidtz or any of the Cato bloggers. One of the more comprehensive recent works that explores that idea is Amartya Sen's "Inequality Reexamined". Did anybody cite that? The idea that all liberals (and at least some non-liberals) are egalitarian is not original to Schmidtz or any of the Cato bloggers. One of the more comprehensive recent works that explores that idea is Amartya Sen’s “Inequality Reexamined”. Did anybody cite that?

]]> By: Bartine http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7799 Bartine Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:03:34 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7799 ... so, 'power corrupts' The minority who control or can gain control of government power ... will do so to further their own self-interest -- at the expense of the majority not in power. Thus, the egalitarian & democratic status of a society is inversely proportional to the power of its government. Who knew ?? The old "Iron Law of Oligarchy" says the same thing. What's new ?? … so, ‘power corrupts’

The minority who control or can gain control of government power … will do so to further their own self-interest — at the expense of the majority not in power.

Thus, the egalitarian & democratic status of a society is inversely proportional to the power of its government. Who knew ??

The old “Iron Law of Oligarchy” says the same thing.

What’s new ??

]]> By: Bartine http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7809 Bartine Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:03:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7809 ... so, 'power corrupts' The minority who control or can gain control of government power ... will do so to further their own self-interest -- at the expense of the majority not in power. Thus, the egalitarian & democratic status of a society is inversely proportional to the power of its government. Who knew ?? The old "Iron Law of Oligarchy" says the same thing. What's new ?? … so, ‘power corrupts’

The minority who control or can gain control of government power … will do so to further their own self-interest — at the expense of the majority not in power.

Thus, the egalitarian & democratic status of a society is inversely proportional to the power of its government. Who knew ??

The old “Iron Law of Oligarchy” says the same thing.

What’s new ??

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7798 Will Wilkinson Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:47:49 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7798 Dallas, Palmer, Schmidtz, and I are all libertarian egalitarians. As Schmidtz points out, there are lots of dimensions of equality. And it's just part of what it means to be a liberal to be egalitarian with respect to power. There are no natural rulers. People ought to be equal with respect to the distribution of legal rights, and those who would give some people special legal rights, such as the right to coerce via the state, carry a very heavy justificatory burden. This is the egalitarian doctrine par excellence. Part of the libertarian argument is that redistributive egalitarianism is an illiberal doctrine, inconsistent with the fundamental liberal equality in power among citizens. Dallas, Palmer, Schmidtz, and I are all libertarian egalitarians. As Schmidtz points out, there are lots of dimensions of equality. And it’s just part of what it means to be a liberal to be egalitarian with respect to power. There are no natural rulers. People ought to be equal with respect to the distribution of legal rights, and those who would give some people special legal rights, such as the right to coerce via the state, carry a very heavy justificatory burden. This is the egalitarian doctrine par excellence. Part of the libertarian argument is that redistributive egalitarianism is an illiberal doctrine, inconsistent with the fundamental liberal equality in power among citizens.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7808 Will Wilkinson Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:47:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7808 Dallas, Palmer, Schmidtz, and I are all libertarian egalitarians. As Schmidtz points out, there are lots of dimensions of equality. And it's just part of what it means to be a liberal to be egalitarian with respect to power. There are no natural rulers. People ought to be equal with respect to the distribution of legal rights, and those who would give some people special legal rights, such as the right to coerce via the state, carry a very heavy justificatory burden. This is the egalitarian doctrine par excellence. Part of the libertarian argument is that redistributive egalitarianism is an illiberal doctrine, inconsistent with the fundamental liberal equality in power among citizens. Dallas, Palmer, Schmidtz, and I are all libertarian egalitarians. As Schmidtz points out, there are lots of dimensions of equality. And it’s just part of what it means to be a liberal to be egalitarian with respect to power. There are no natural rulers. People ought to be equal with respect to the distribution of legal rights, and those who would give some people special legal rights, such as the right to coerce via the state, carry a very heavy justificatory burden. This is the egalitarian doctrine par excellence. Part of the libertarian argument is that redistributive egalitarianism is an illiberal doctrine, inconsistent with the fundamental liberal equality in power among citizens.

]]> By: Dallas http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7797 Dallas Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:33:09 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7797 Will, I am a little confused on who you're referring to when you say non-libertarian egalitarians. Are there libertarian egalitarians? Who are they? In the Cato Unbound discussion, Schmidtz didn't seem to be an egalitarian--neither did Singer or Palmer. Do you have any libertarian egalitarians in mind? Will,

I am a little confused on who you’re referring to when you say non-libertarian egalitarians. Are there libertarian egalitarians? Who are they?

In the Cato Unbound discussion, Schmidtz didn’t seem to be an egalitarian–neither did Singer or Palmer.

Do you have any libertarian egalitarians in mind?

]]> By: Dallas http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7807 Dallas Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:33:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/03/15/putting-more-on-the-table-brings-people-with-more-to-the-table/#comment-7807 Will, I am a little confused on who you're referring to when you say non-libertarian egalitarians. Are there libertarian egalitarians? Who are they? In the Cato Unbound discussion, Schmidtz didn't seem to be an egalitarian--neither did Singer or Palmer. Do you have any libertarian egalitarians in mind? Will,

I am a little confused on who you’re referring to when you say non-libertarian egalitarians. Are there libertarian egalitarians? Who are they?

In the Cato Unbound discussion, Schmidtz didn’t seem to be an egalitarian–neither did Singer or Palmer.

Do you have any libertarian egalitarians in mind?

]]>