Comments on: Why Do Economists Care About Inequality?

By: jasam.net » Point, Set, Match….

jasam.net » Point, Set, Match…. — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:25:24 +0000

[...] C) Explain at length that their handwringing about material inequality consists mostly of category errors, like Will Wilkinson. [...]

By: asg

asg — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:10:07 +0000

Well, it’s important to distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic value. It’s easy to think of situations where equality might have some instrumental value, but Will (and Krugman, presumably) are talking about intrinsic value.

By: asg

asg — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:10:00 +0000

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:51:46 +0000

I think some better reasons to be concerned about inequality would include its potential health and social consequences. Rates of murder and other violent crime, for instance, track a nation’ level of inequality (not it’s wealth). The same goes for various measures of health and social capital.

Correlation needn’t imply direct causation, obviously, but some of the patterns are striking, to say the least. Richard Wilkinson’s book ‘The Impact of Inequality’ is a good review of this literature from an epidemiological standpoint.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:51:00 +0000

By: Jadagul

Jadagul — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:30:25 +0000

I find Kyle and Dirk interesting, because I’m exactly the opposite. I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone cares about inequality qua (if Will gets to use it, so do I) inequality. I can see being concerned about inequality if you think it leads to some other bad outcome–as perhaps in Brazil, where the structure of wealth ownership is inhibiting development and growth. But I don’t understand what makes inequality ipso facto bad.

By: Jadagul

Jadagul — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:30:00 +0000

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:11:45 +0000

“…let me say that I don’t really understand why economists care about income inequality qua economists.”

A reading of the history of economic thought indicates that the origins of economics seemed to root its concern in inequality.

When Axel Leijonhufvud traced the endevors of macroeconomists, his starting point was Irving Fisher and Knut Wicksell where Axel mentions that Fisher and Wicksell were both deeply concerned with distributive justice.

However, I don’t think this is the answer you were wanting. I think your real question is *should* economists be concerned about (income) inequality? For that, I think economists should read more moral philosophy and be required to read Lionel Robbin’s article on the fallacy of comparing utilities.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:11:00 +0000

“…let me say that I don’t really understand why economists care about income inequality qua economists.”

A reading of the history of economic thought indicates that the origins of economics seemed to root its concern in inequality.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:19:10 +0000

Kyle, You recognize the distinction. Imagaine you have more in the bank than me. Will you sympathize with my plight? No, because I have had sufficient material resources to develop my basic capacities, and I have enough to enact my plans. The fact that you or anyone else may have more than me is external and irrelevant to my chane of having a good life.

I think “enough” is somewhat relative, but mostly absolute.