Thanks Leland. Economic systems, and just plain luck, affect life outcomes. Providing equal opportunities in an unequal world is the challenge. A Universal Basic Income is a possible solution, but it is not easy to implement.
And not necessarily positive. From 1972-79 I travelled widely and did a lot of voluntary work. In 1979, my girl-friend and I decided to visit her family in Oz then travel in Asia. There were 1.75 million unemployed. We were doing voluntary work in Oxford, we decided to travel to London on Saturday and start work on Tuesday to save for our trip. We did. I got work in building renovation, for which I had no background, at a good wage. No-one else turned up to seek the job. In Oz, I worked for a time as an unemployment benefits clerk, and saw that many were content to be paid while not seeking work. UBI is an invitation to avoid responsibility.
I'm not familiar with your Nozik thought experiment, but if it stops there it needs a sequel.
Assuming your village is a closed universe Elvis has to do something with his money, unless he's like Scrooge McDuck and just wants to keep it in a vault where he can wallow in it. So he will exchange it with his fellow citizens for things he wants and they can supply.
Perhaps Nozik does allow for this, but Stiglitz makes this error too in thinking that savings are somehow a reduction in wealth because they are not spending. But in fact they are. Every dollar saved is a dollar given to a banker as a deposit, or invested in productive businesses or assets. The deposit will be loaned to people who will spend it.
The businesses will use the money to buy equipment and employ staff, and the assets will be deployed in such a way that people will pay for their use, facilitating further expenditure. And if the saving allows for more productive assets to be produced and deployed, then overall standards of living will actually increase.
And the people most likely to save are those who are best at saving are those who are the best at making money, generally, so it's a good thing that the market allocates more wealth to them so they can invest it to all of our mutual benefits.
Without inequality in wealth we'd all be a lot worse off.
As an economist, I can agree only with Vonnegut, whose understanding of life and reality was greater than the others named here. FYI, I grew up in a poor fatherless family in impoverished post-war England. I suspect that none of those authors did.
In an attempt to produce an equal society both Stalin and Mao purged the managerial classes and the educated elites. The result was mass starvation.
Inequality is a consequence of our economic systems. See: https://lelandbeaumont.substack.com/p/find-work-or-starve-8fa99a4551be?s=w
No, inequality is a consequence of everyone being differeent and having differing circumstances and priorities.
If you want a communist revolution, the first thing you need is lots of cemeteries.
Thanks Leland. Economic systems, and just plain luck, affect life outcomes. Providing equal opportunities in an unequal world is the challenge. A Universal Basic Income is a possible solution, but it is not easy to implement.
And not necessarily positive. From 1972-79 I travelled widely and did a lot of voluntary work. In 1979, my girl-friend and I decided to visit her family in Oz then travel in Asia. There were 1.75 million unemployed. We were doing voluntary work in Oxford, we decided to travel to London on Saturday and start work on Tuesday to save for our trip. We did. I got work in building renovation, for which I had no background, at a good wage. No-one else turned up to seek the job. In Oz, I worked for a time as an unemployment benefits clerk, and saw that many were content to be paid while not seeking work. UBI is an invitation to avoid responsibility.
Steven, a clever juggling act: One absurd outcome after another. Nonetheless, I enjoy the juggling.
I'm not familiar with your Nozik thought experiment, but if it stops there it needs a sequel.
Assuming your village is a closed universe Elvis has to do something with his money, unless he's like Scrooge McDuck and just wants to keep it in a vault where he can wallow in it. So he will exchange it with his fellow citizens for things he wants and they can supply.
Perhaps Nozik does allow for this, but Stiglitz makes this error too in thinking that savings are somehow a reduction in wealth because they are not spending. But in fact they are. Every dollar saved is a dollar given to a banker as a deposit, or invested in productive businesses or assets. The deposit will be loaned to people who will spend it.
The businesses will use the money to buy equipment and employ staff, and the assets will be deployed in such a way that people will pay for their use, facilitating further expenditure. And if the saving allows for more productive assets to be produced and deployed, then overall standards of living will actually increase.
And the people most likely to save are those who are best at saving are those who are the best at making money, generally, so it's a good thing that the market allocates more wealth to them so they can invest it to all of our mutual benefits.
Without inequality in wealth we'd all be a lot worse off.
Of course, you are 100 per cent correct. Nozik was just responding to those who consider inequality always unfair and unjust.
As an economist, I can agree only with Vonnegut, whose understanding of life and reality was greater than the others named here. FYI, I grew up in a poor fatherless family in impoverished post-war England. I suspect that none of those authors did.