In the inequality post, I puzzled over the next conundrum:
There is a view motivating the left that inequality is just unjust so nosotros - the federal regime is ever "we" -- own got to halt it. If they'd enjoin that, fine, nosotros could own got productive discussion.
But they say, in addition to I was going afterwards inwards the post, all sorts of other things. That inequality volition displace hapless people to pass equally good much, that it volition displace them to rising inwards political rebellion, for example. For that to happen, for the presence of the rich to deport upon their conduct inwards whatever way, they own got to know most how the exploding 1/10 of 1% live, in addition to how many of them at that spot are. Which just doesn't brand whatever sense.
Paul Krugman had a few revealing columns over the weekend. (No, non the endlessly repeated Say's Law calumny. I trust yous all sympathize how empty that is.)
In "Our invisible Rich,"
But this seems to play exactly to my point. If most Americans own got no thought how the superwealthy live, or how many superwealthy at that spot are, just how tin give the sack their existence influence the conduct of people who don't know they are fifty-fifty there?
If a tree falls inwards the woods in addition to nobody hears, did the tree fall? If a hedge fund director has a $2,000 bottle of vino inwards his Hampton estate, how produce yous rate for that improve beer yous can't afford?
Again (before comments fill upwards up amongst "heartless shill of the rich" nonsense) Inequality equally a symptom of problems I'm all on board amongst -- cronyism, connections getting yous access to education, to favorable handling yesteryear Federal Regulatory agencies, in addition to so on are problems. That nosotros demand to cook rotten pedagogy in addition to other problems of the hapless I'm on board with. But the claim is that inequality by itself, fifty-fifty if fairly gained, causes changes inwards conduct amid people who don't fifty-fifty know it's there.
In "David Brooks piece, Krugman went on,
And, if the "average American" has no thought how the rich alive -- kickoff column -- they are sure as shooting non "flaunting" or "displaying" their wealth to the average American -- minute column. Again, that's a apartment out contradiction.
As I surveyed inwards the inequality post, the other large economical "problem" resulting from inequality is that the rich don't swallow enough, so nosotros own got secular stagnation. Well, are the rich consuming equally good much or equally good little? Let's brand upwards our minds here.
But 2+2 produce brand 4. "We," yous in addition to I, may non "see individual equity managers commuting yesteryear helicopter to their immense mansions," but Paul certain sees it in addition to knows most it. The super-wealthly aren't causing whatever "negative externalities" to yous in addition to me, in addition to the less fortunate who environs us. But they certain are bugging Paul.
So what I run across expressed crystal clear hither is an age-old sentiment. The established liberal institution aristocracy bemoans the garish tastes of the nouveau-riche. Plus ca change.
Except instantly it's non just, "let's non permit them inwards the province social club deah." It's "an declaration for progressive taxation that goes beyond the maximization of revenue. " Read that again. It way convey it, non to fund programs but just to lop off their heads because Paul doesn't similar their fancy haircuts.
As for Veblen in addition to the theory of conspicuous consumption, if yous haven't read H.L. Mencken's review, halt everything in addition to produce so now. (Google found me this one, at that spot may endure better) It ends,
Why does it thing at all to a vegetable picker inwards Fresno, or an unemployed teenager on the S side of Chicago, whether 10 or 100 hedge fund managers inwards Greenwich own got individual jets? How produce they fifty-fifty know how many hedge fund managers wing private? They own got difficult lives, in addition to a lot of problems. But just what occupation does top 1% inequality actually correspond to them?I emphasized the quantity number here. His gramps inwards the 1930s watched movies in addition to saw glamorous lifestyles way beyond what he could achieve. Increasing inequality is most larger numbers who alive a lavish lifestyle. And the claim is that increasing inequality is changing behavior.
There is a view motivating the left that inequality is just unjust so nosotros - the federal regime is ever "we" -- own got to halt it. If they'd enjoin that, fine, nosotros could own got productive discussion.
But they say, in addition to I was going afterwards inwards the post, all sorts of other things. That inequality volition displace hapless people to pass equally good much, that it volition displace them to rising inwards political rebellion, for example. For that to happen, for the presence of the rich to deport upon their conduct inwards whatever way, they own got to know most how the exploding 1/10 of 1% live, in addition to how many of them at that spot are. Which just doesn't brand whatever sense.
Paul Krugman had a few revealing columns over the weekend. (No, non the endlessly repeated Say's Law calumny. I trust yous all sympathize how empty that is.)
In "Our invisible Rich,"
In fact, most Americans own got no thought just how unequal our enterprise has become.
The latest slice of evidence to that upshot is a survey bespeak people inwards diverse countries how much they thought top executives of major companies brand relative to unskilled workers. In the USA the median respondent believed that master copy executives brand most thirty times equally much equally their employees, which was roughly truthful inwards the 1960s — but since so the gap has soared, so that today master copy executives earn something similar 300 times equally much equally ordinary workers....
So how tin give the sack people endure unaware of this development, or at to the lowest degree unaware of its scale? The main answer, I’d suggest, is that the really rich are so removed from ordinary people’s lives that nosotros never run across what they have. We may notice, in addition to experience aggrieved about, college kids driving luxury cars; but nosotros don’t run across individual equity managers commuting yesteryear helicopter to their immense mansions inwards the Hamptons. The commanding heights of our economic scheme are invisible because they’re lost inwards the clouds.Finally, hither is something I tin give the sack concord amongst him about. The rich are invisible. The average soul has no idea actually most the divergence betwixt taking a limo or a helicopter to the Hamptons, like shooting fish in a barrel equally that may endure to Paul. And less thought of whether at that spot are 10 such people, implying no alter inwards the distribution of income, or 1000, a large increase inwards the upper tail.
But this seems to play exactly to my point. If most Americans own got no thought how the superwealthy live, or how many superwealthy at that spot are, just how tin give the sack their existence influence the conduct of people who don't know they are fifty-fifty there?
If a tree falls inwards the woods in addition to nobody hears, did the tree fall? If a hedge fund director has a $2,000 bottle of vino inwards his Hampton estate, how produce yous rate for that improve beer yous can't afford?
In "David Brooks piece, Krugman went on,
..for many of the rich flaunting is what it’s all about. Living inwards a 30,000 foursquare pes household isn’t much nicer than living inwards a 5,000 foursquare pes house;...So it’s largely most display — which Thorstein Veblen could, of course, own got told you.
... If yous experience that it’s bad for enterprise to own got people flaunting their relative wealth, yous own got inwards upshot accepted the view that dandy wealth imposes negative externalities on the residue of the population — which is an declaration for progressive taxation that goes beyond the maximization of revenue.This is all quite revealing. But if the average American doesn't know how the super-rich alive -- kickoff column -- it is just impossible to own got "negative externalities" of wealth per se --not, I demand to transcend on reminding you, equally a symptom of something else. So the minute column flatly contradicts the first.
And, if the "average American" has no thought how the rich alive -- kickoff column -- they are sure as shooting non "flaunting" or "displaying" their wealth to the average American -- minute column. Again, that's a apartment out contradiction.
As I surveyed inwards the inequality post, the other large economical "problem" resulting from inequality is that the rich don't swallow enough, so nosotros own got secular stagnation. Well, are the rich consuming equally good much or equally good little? Let's brand upwards our minds here.
But 2+2 produce brand 4. "We," yous in addition to I, may non "see individual equity managers commuting yesteryear helicopter to their immense mansions," but Paul certain sees it in addition to knows most it. The super-wealthly aren't causing whatever "negative externalities" to yous in addition to me, in addition to the less fortunate who environs us. But they certain are bugging Paul.
So what I run across expressed crystal clear hither is an age-old sentiment. The established liberal institution aristocracy bemoans the garish tastes of the nouveau-riche. Plus ca change.
Except instantly it's non just, "let's non permit them inwards the province social club deah." It's "an declaration for progressive taxation that goes beyond the maximization of revenue. " Read that again. It way convey it, non to fund programs but just to lop off their heads because Paul doesn't similar their fancy haircuts.
As for Veblen in addition to the theory of conspicuous consumption, if yous haven't read H.L. Mencken's review, halt everything in addition to produce so now. (Google found me this one, at that spot may endure better) It ends,
But why don’t nosotros transcend on flocks? Why produce nosotros renounce cows in addition to hire Jugo-Slavs? Because “to the average pop apprehension a herd of cattle so pointedly suggests thrift in addition to usefulness that their presence . . . would endure intolerably cheap”. Plowing through a bad mass from cease to end, I could uncovering nada sillier than this. Here, indeed, the whole “theory of conspicuous waste” was exposed for just what it was: i per cent. cliché in addition to ninety-nine per cent. nonsense. Had the genial professor, pondering his dandy problems, ever taken a walk inwards the country? And had he, inwards the course of instruction of that walk, ever crossed a pasture inhabited yesteryear a moo-cow (Bos taurus)? And had he, making that crossing, ever passed astern of the moo-cow herself? And had he, hence passing astern, ever stepped carelessly, in addition to —
