5 ms·
If you clearly define "fairness" as you see it, you can test whether free markets or government controlled ones are the ones which come closest to satisfying yo
by nickff 11y ago
If you clearly define "fairness" as you see it, you can test whether free markets or government controlled ones are the ones which come closest to satisfying your preferences. There are a number of paradigms, Haidt describes two visions of fairness: one of equality and another of proportionality.[1]
Under most definitions of social justice (though not all the ones focusing on relative income distributions), the free market has better outcomes than more socialist systems. Free markets allow for liberty and greater prosperity, and this results in healthier, richer citizens with the freedom to pursue a good life. Free markets also encourage sympathy, trust, and fellow-feeling.[2]
Focusing on a measure of equality such as national GINI coefficients, the USA is closest to Phillipines, Peru, Uruguay, and Cameroon.[3] Does the GINI translate to "fairness"? Which country of the five would you prefer to live in if you were at a given position of the income distribution? Which has the freest markets? Which is most "fair"? Does the GINI convey much information about being rich or poor in a country?
[1] http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/of-freedom-and-fairness.php?page=all http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/of-freedom-and-fairness.p...
[2] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18762452-why-not-capitalism http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18762452-why-not-capitali...
[3] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
- Steko 11y agoI think you've mistaken two desireable dimensions as a choice. A country like Norway beats the U.S. in both GDP per capita (PPP and nominal) and in all measures of inequality.
- nickff 11y agoI was making a different point: that measures of equality are not equivalent to measures of 'goodness' or proportionality. The statistics you are using are biased against the USA because of the high rate of immigration to the USA; if you control for this, the non-immigrant US citizen PPP and per capita GDP are much closer to Norway's (though I'm not sure whether the US is higher or lower than Norway). I have lost the source for this, but can provide you with this citation that shows what a difference there is between the largely unskilled first generation immigrants (that make up a large portion of the US population), and later generations.[1] disclosure: I am neither American or Norwegian by country of birth or residence [1] http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn_population/cb10-159.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/foreignborn...
- Steko 11y agoThere's an implied choice just by bringing up the subject of proportionality. As for stats we can attack a legion of asterisks to them but that misses the point: there are rich countries that are not unequal. Proportionality is not relevant to the discussion about what the US should do to restore truer meritocracy.