4 ms·
He also says "it’s not clear that inequality (as opposed to poverty) is a moral abomination, or that reducing it is progress," so it may be unclear exactly what
by joshuahedlund 9y ago
He also says "it’s not clear that inequality (as opposed to poverty) is a moral abomination, or that reducing it is progress," so it may be unclear exactly what he means by the first statement.
- neolefty 9y agoIs he talking about extreme inequality, or inequality in general?
- danielam 9y agoMy guess is both, i.e., inequality as such is not a problem, whereas poverty is. Frankfurt makes a similar distinction in "On Inequality". One way to distinguish the two is to observe that it is possible to have a society in which everyone is equally poor and thus one in which inequality does not exist. Conversely, observe that the difference in material wealth between the upper middle class and the billionaire class poses no problems where wealth itself is concerned. Both classes are very well off. Now, there may be problems that are more likely to occur when economic inequality obtains given the power that money can afford people in practice. But as such, inequality itself not the root of these problems and not the ultimate problem itself.
- adnzzzzZ 9y agoHe likely means that a healthy level of inequality is necessary otherwise productive individuals won't have incentives to be productive. There are real differences in output between different individuals and trying to normalize this difference means that society loses. With this in mind you can easily say things like "inequality is not a moral abomination and reducing it is not progress".