Economics Questions

Re: What if...

Smiling Dave — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:36:44 GMT

This whole inequality question is barking up the wrong tree.

For any given economic state of affairs, we want to a) acheive the maximum possible increase of wealth for everyone and b) minimize the violence inflicted on everyone. Right?

An uncoerced free market achieves both goals. Any forced redistribution of wealth, even if done with the best intentions of "minimizing inequality" yields the very opposite of both goals. Read Mises' Socialism.

Re: What if...

krazy kaju — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 03:20:42 GMT

And who says there even is such a thing as an optimal level of inequality? What if anarchism creates conditions for inequality above the "social optimum" and government creates conditions for inequality below the "social optimum" to the exact same degree?

Re: What if...

William — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:01:14 GMT

Let's say that we all agree that there exists some socially optimal level of inequality I*

I don't understand how there could ever be this agreement other than "we are always at l*" , the term "inequality" simply could not work in any other scietific or logical way and make sense. And even there, the word becomes rather pointless.

Re: What if...

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:44:00 GMT

what do plumb-line libertarians say?

What if...

EconomistInTraining — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:18:52 GMT

Let's say that we all agree that there exists some socially optimal level of inequality I*

Now, left libertarians say:

Under anarchy, there some level of social inequality Ianarchy will prevail where Ianarchy < Istate

Right libertarians, on the other hand say, argue:

The current level of inequality is closer to I* than Ianarchy is.

What if both statements are true?