6 ms·
That reductio ad absurdum, and most likely not what the OP meant. The idea that a fair society is one where inequalities are rather low is not exclusive to extr
by cdavid 16y ago
That reductio ad absurdum, and most likely not what the OP meant. The idea that a fair society is one where inequalities are rather low is not exclusive to extreme left ideologies. How you articulate inequality and justice is one of the most pertinent way to describe right vs left ideologies, and economics do not preclude either view (up to a certain degree).
If you read serious works about how fairness and inequality relate in modern democracy (for example John Rawls), you will realize that the concept is certainly worth of consideration. Being of a normative nature, it is obviously a matter of personal judgement and opinion, but the idea that inequalities are mostly bad by nature cannot be dismissed as naive, stupid or both.
Finally, I have never seen any serious economic work which claim that inequality was necessary for an health economy. There is a lot of studies about policies which tried to decrease inequalities with disastrous consequences, of course, but that's different.
- btilly 16y agoLow inequalities and no inequalities are very different. Suppose that we start with equal wealth. And then I buy and consume a chocolate bar. Odds are that I'm now happier and poorer than you. Who would seriously argue that this wealth inequality is a bad thing? I'm right there with people who complain about the amount of inequality that we have today. I don't think that it is healthy or productive. But if you believe in having private property and money, you have accepted that some level of inequality is acceptable.
- cdavid 16y agoWell, sure, it is impossible to have 0 inequality if you consider pure equality, but that's a trivial remark. The notion of equality almost always makes sense only in a statistical sense (are two values statistically different), unless you have a discrete observation.