3 ms·

If you're interested, check out the Economist's 2012 special report on inequality (http://www.economist.com/node/21564414 http://www.economist.com/node/21564414

If you're interested, check out the Economist's 2012 special report on inequality (http://www.economist.com/node/21564414 http://www.economist.com/node/21564414). To quote from another Economist article around the same time (http://www.economist.com/node/21564556#sthash.AXidvmgE.dpbs http://www.economist.com/node/21564556#sthash.AXidvmgE.dpbs): "It is also true that some measure of inequality is good for an economy. It sharpens incentives to work hard and take risks; it rewards the talented innovators who drive economic progress. Free-traders have always accepted that the more global a market, the greater the rewards will be for the winners. But as our special report this week argues, inequality has reached a stage where it can be inefficient and bad for growth." This is due to, but not limited to, cronyism and lack of equality of opportunity (e.g., college). But also, I think the new Princeton/Northwestern study that says the US is an oligarchy provides enough reason to be worried about inequality. If we agree democracy is important -- which means we value the voices of all citizens -- then growing inequality in its current state is concerning because it means the average citizen has a "miniscule...impact on public policy."

dnautics 12y ago
but we don't agree that democracy per se is important. There are plenty of cases where "the value of the voices of all citizens", can create inequality or severe injustice. If you are measuring public policy in a nationalistic sense, then yes, an individual does have a miniscule impact on public policy because the per-individual impact is decreasing as the population increases. Then perhaps a presciption would be to decentralize governments, so that an an individual has more net political agency. The anti-capitalist prescription, however, does exactly the opposite by concentrating political power in larger organization with broader oversight over bigger populations of individuals. Which, of course, exacerbates inequality because the mean marginal impact of an individual necessarily decreases.

dnautics 12y ago

but we don't agree that democracy per se is important. There are plenty of cases where "the value of the voices of all citizens", can create inequality or severe injustice. If you are measuring public policy in a nationalistic sense, then yes, an individual does have a miniscule impact on public policy because the per-individual impact is decreasing as the population increases. Then perhaps a presciption would be to decentralize governments, so that an an individual has more net political agency. The anti-capitalist prescription, however, does exactly the opposite by concentrating political power in larger organization with broader oversight over bigger populations of individuals. Which, of course, exacerbates inequality because the mean marginal impact of an individual necessarily decreases.