Discussion Tuesday

Let’s do some inequality stuff.

The wealthier a society is, the less (relative) income inequality it should be willing to accept

5 replies
  1. Michael Reddell
    Michael Reddell says:

    How about reversing the argument. The poorer a society the less income inequality it should be willing to accept. In a very poor subsistence society, extra resources/product accruing to a small group might mean a materially heightened risk of early death for others.

  2. Kimble
    Kimble says:

    One perverse conclusion from the ‘relative inequality causes cancer’ argument, is that massive inequality is fine as long as the people at the bottom never see the people at the top.

    Anyway, the wealthier a society is, the less absolute poverty it should be willing to accept.

  3. JC
    JC says:

    Perhaps the sentence should start with “In general” or somesuch because I can think of societies that could be poor or fragmented but get a one off windfall of some product like oil or phosphate or something like that and prefer to use the accumulated revenues to future proof the nation in someway.

    The natives get very little of this income but they do get a product like damage repairs or increased political stability which doesn’t change the inequality but generally is an advantage to all. Sometimes just being no worse off than formerly is the best reward of all.. just ask the Syrians about that.


    • Kimble
      Kimble says:

      Everything said by an economist has a silent “In general…” at the start of it.

      Economists merely employ a time saving shorthand for the phrase. They call it “inhaling”.

  4. lalitha
    lalitha says:

    Hi my family member! I wish to say that this post is amazing, nice
    written and come with approximately all important infos. I’d like to see
    more posts like this .

Comments are closed.