this is a very interesting blog post. I see only one issue with the author's arguments. In a capitalistic system, profit is the paramount objective. For capitalists, there is no sense to segregate children from poor households and create a caste system. if they do so, they will lose everything; and they know about this. high inequality in the capitalistic system such as in the US is a direct product of two absolutely meaningless wars. The electoral system of the US failed in 2000. The cost of it was high in terms of an unacceptable level of inequality and political disordering with the emerging of trump(ism).
I would only ask that the economic flow considerations of inequality also be analyzed.
In particular, one major difference between a 3rd world economy and a 1st world one is the complexity of economic flows - i.e. services.
An extremely poor economy has virtually no complexity, in comparison.
Thus whether it is due to (lack of) disposable income or social/technological/productivity backwardness or some other (or some combination) of factors, it is the complexities of economic flows which also affect outcomes.
Or put another way: it isn't just about investment turned into capital.
The process of "Brazilianization" shows how this can be hijacked: the wealthy want ever cheaper labor to enable low cost servants. Keeping the lower classes poor and divided is thus a prerogative.
Rung by rung we are opening dimensions where we can question our religious-type thinking about the economy. AKA not thinking or understanding at all. Thank you.
Great summary!! My only point of disagreement has to do with reducing fairness considerations about inequalities to opportunities. Even if part of our income should depend on the way we take advantage (or not) of our opportunities (in other words, the choices we make), I think people should have some necessary means to lead a good life regardless of their choices. Nonetheless, it's just a slight point of disagreement, because the common meaning of "opportunities" could be enlarged to include something like what Cohen called "access to advantage".
this is a very interesting blog post. I see only one issue with the author's arguments. In a capitalistic system, profit is the paramount objective. For capitalists, there is no sense to segregate children from poor households and create a caste system. if they do so, they will lose everything; and they know about this. high inequality in the capitalistic system such as in the US is a direct product of two absolutely meaningless wars. The electoral system of the US failed in 2000. The cost of it was high in terms of an unacceptable level of inequality and political disordering with the emerging of trump(ism).
should gini coefficient or similar be a fed target, like interest rates and unemployment?
I would only ask that the economic flow considerations of inequality also be analyzed.
In particular, one major difference between a 3rd world economy and a 1st world one is the complexity of economic flows - i.e. services.
An extremely poor economy has virtually no complexity, in comparison.
Thus whether it is due to (lack of) disposable income or social/technological/productivity backwardness or some other (or some combination) of factors, it is the complexities of economic flows which also affect outcomes.
Or put another way: it isn't just about investment turned into capital.
The process of "Brazilianization" shows how this can be hijacked: the wealthy want ever cheaper labor to enable low cost servants. Keeping the lower classes poor and divided is thus a prerogative.
Rung by rung we are opening dimensions where we can question our religious-type thinking about the economy. AKA not thinking or understanding at all. Thank you.
Great summary!! My only point of disagreement has to do with reducing fairness considerations about inequalities to opportunities. Even if part of our income should depend on the way we take advantage (or not) of our opportunities (in other words, the choices we make), I think people should have some necessary means to lead a good life regardless of their choices. Nonetheless, it's just a slight point of disagreement, because the common meaning of "opportunities" could be enlarged to include something like what Cohen called "access to advantage".
Good read!