Quantcast

Summary: skip to the pictures after the <big> text under heading 2.

11111111111111111

Since 2009, pundits have concerned themselves with economic inequality. Robert Reich’s infographic about the US I’ll treat as a summary.

Let me dummyise the opinionscape into three camps:

  1. John Galt. The etymology of aristo-cracy is “rule by the best people”. The market rewards output fairly. Tax the best people and you will drive them out of France and into perfect stateless seasteads. Lose them and you’ll be sorry.
  2. Maximilien de Robespierre. F–k the rich. They inherited their way to the top. Connections, luck, brown-nosing, and false confidence determine incomes more than “merit”. The middle manager is no better than his underling. The applicant who got the job is no better than another applicant who was ignored. Guillotine the superfluous gentleman, the role will still be filled; the new girl may even do it better.
  3. Vilfredo Pareto. Hey–if the rich aren’t actively making the poor worse off, what does it matter?

The third view is the one I want to challenge just now.

image

When I see a manual farmer being destroyed by Nature, I feel:

  • privileged
  • guilty
  • sorry for the farmer
  • the longer I spent thinking about their suffering, the sorrier I feel
  • Why doesn’t somebody do something? They don’t need much. They just need a little help.
  • This is so unfair.

And somehow, gut reactions are part of real morality and ethics.

 

22222222222222222

So here’s my challenge to the Paretians. Which image galls you more:

  1. a farmer suffering from drought, with the whole community destroyed–families crying into each other in solidarity as they all lost pretty much everything
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg
    , or…
  2. next to the damned farmers weeping on their knees, stands the Monopoly Man, laughing, swirling a flute of champagne and recounting the fable of the grasshopper and the ant.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45437000/jpg/_45437836_farmerindiaafpgetty466.jpg
http://rootsblog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834520e4069e2010534c9b759970b-pi
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Reaching_The_World/homeless_man.jpg
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x119/xofferson/monopoly_man-13539.jpg

http://www.tehelka.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/img26.jpg
http://slwakes.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/4209433153_f9c6877925_o.jpg?w=295&h=300
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/sites/default/files/images/Officer%20Deprimo.jpg

To the extent that these gut reactions translate into legitimate morals, the Robespierreans win over the Galtists and over the Paretians.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m90j5qEmAd1rb86ldo1_400.jpg

Envy exists. From this one infers that when the rich get richer but the poor don’t, that their individual utilities can still drop. But let’s go beyond society-as-a-collection-of-independent-individuals.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Rich-Getting-Richer.jpg

The image of the Monopoly Man merrily dancing next to the poor (or even indifferently ignoring their plight) curdles the blood. Gucci little piggies go first against the wall for a reason.

 

33333333333333333

I’ve tweaked the story of Evil Monopoly Man to inflame and incite as much as possible with

  • spite
  • indifference
  • entitlement
  • lack of pity
  • grandeur
  • pride

Matthew 19:23–24. Does being wealthy necessarily make you that heartless Monopoly Man?

If your friend were a good rich person, you’d not want to see them punished for their success. And one might feel differently about punishing a kind-hearted soul born into poverty who worked her way to worldly glory, than the haughty son of a magnate.

The Windows Monopoly Man won’t see his body from a basket.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/197069/thumbs/r-BILL-GATES-large570.jpg
Nor will the richie who wants to raise income taxes.
http://www.styleite.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/top.jpg
Contrast them to some other famous faces who realised they needed to touch up their public image:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/abc_peter_thiel_jef_110526_wmain.jpg
http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/12-1f033-citadel1-300x300.jpg
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/29_steveschwa_lgl.jpg

Chivalric knights are laid in splendid tombs,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Edward%2C_the_Black_Prince%2C_Canterbury_%282896092290%29.jpg
and penitent lords may be absolved.
https://whogetswhat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/clinton-praying.jpg

We’ve now left the scalar fields of individual wealth and income for the comparatively nebulous world of classical virtue.

But as “unscientific” as that may seem, it would be much more unscientific to ignore obvious empirical facts:

  • Envy is real.
  • Resentment is real.
  • Pity is worth something.
  • Caring counts.
  • Penitence is possible.

If people are reduced to utility functions, those should be reasonable for primatesprimates who punish unfairness, who reward reciprocity, who experience outrage. Primal emotions should be primary; ∂Utils/∂€ > 0 is merely axiomatic.

To do justice to the evidence on reciprocity, economists cannot treat questions of welfare with the walled-off individual monotonic money functions which are convenient elsewhere.

41 notes

  1. clazzjassicalrockhop reblogged this from isomorphismes
  2. jaehaerys1 reblogged this from isomorphismes and added:
    I agree, we should def base complex social issues off out-of-context knee jerk emotional reactions. We should totally...
  3. xxxdragonfucker69xxx reblogged this from isomorphismes
  4. tallxtasy reblogged this from isomorphismes
  5. feenex reblogged this from isomorphismes
  6. sprachspiele said: online.wsj.com/news/ar…
  7. isomorphismes posted this