Instapundit asks the question “What’s love got to do with it?”…sorry…”What’s so bad about income inequality?” in a TCS column yesterday.
He seems to drift a bit as he makes his points, but I’ll take that as exploring-out-loud. Here’s what he says:
If we’re all getting richer, why is it bad for the richest to be getting richer faster?
He replies that a) some may argue that it’s unaesthetic; b) it places – at the end of a long term of wealth concentration – civil society at some risk; and c) he makes the case for B) by pointing to George Soros and suggesting that increased concentrations of wealth could create a situation where
the imbalance in political power between the super-rich and the rest of us might become colossal. Of course, campaign finance reform might conceivably land Soros in jail, but the point still holds: if the super-rich become rich enough, they’ll become laws unto themselves. And if that happens, it doesn’t matter that the rest of us are getting richer, too.
I’ll agree, suggest that we’re already seeing that to a great extent, and further, that what we’re already seeing is having serious negative consequences on civil society.
I’ve defended redistribution in the past
There is a critical level of diffusion of power that has made the American model work. Not too diffuse, for there we get the demos, and ultimately the mob; and not too concentrated, for there we begin to stratify as those with privilege erect barriers to make sure that they can keep it.
My biggest concern is that we are near a tipping point where that delicate balance will be at risk. I, and others like me, want to shove the pendulum back the other way.
Glenn thinks that the tipping point is in the far future. I don’t; I think that the kind of isolation and stratification that we’re talking about is here, now, and that the values of those who would toss out equality as a social good and replace it entirely with a reified hierarchy of power and wealth frighten me.
…I’ll also suggest that there is also an even more significant distinction between a society that holds equality – any kind of equality – as a foundational belief, and one that does not. I used Dickens’ England as an example of a class-driven society; one in which the accepted reality of inequality – in every form, political, legal, economic, and moral – is itself one of the organizing principles of the society. I could have used Elizabeth’s England, or the Persia of Cyrus, but there are more people that know Dickens – and the point is more clearly made by a society closer to us – than either of those.
Those are fundamentally different kinds of societies than those that hold equality as a value, regardless of what kind of equality is being discussed, and that difference ought to be obvious. If it isn’t, imagine for a moment a Persian artisan making an appeal to Cyrus or Darius based on their common humanity, and on some body of common rights. Having trouble?? No kidding…
The notion that people are equal in any way, and that societies should be organized on that principle was a revolutionary one, and one that we sadly take for granted. We shouldn’t.
Well that all depends on how you define “equality”. I’d say trying to swing the pendulum the other way (presumably by taxing rich people more–correct me if I’m wrong) isn’t very equal at all. I’m not worried about the rich’s getting too powerful, because we poor people will always vastly outnumber them.
Interesting post(s) AL. What I’d comment here on is that I don’t think redistribution is a real condition for “equality”. Instead, it seems to me to be a real attempt at “uniformity.” Both equality of opportunity and the equality of outcome allow for variance in the final manifestations of that equality — simply the mechanisms are different (for opportunity, generally the inability to restrict rights give to all members to pursue various paths; and for outcome the assurance that for each input, the returns to output are always the same, so that no plumber makes more than another, say, or every unit of labor is paid for with a uniform wage). Redistribution of wealth is often done under the guise of improving both of these, but redistribution for the sake of simply being able to say incomes are less disparate than they were before appears to me to be simply looking for a uniformity among observances. This seems, largely, like the “aesthetic” critique — but it’s more than that.
To say something more useful than the ‘rich are getting richer at a faster rate”, I think it would have to be shown that this increasing divergence is having some sort of effect OTHER than simple aesthetics (bank accounts looking obscene by comparison). The ultra wealthy or well connected haven’t, from what I can see, gained a measure of living standard that they weren’t able to achieve earlier. Access to the world’s leading/cutting-edge healthcare, say, or dining with world leaders. The Rockefellers, Morgans, and others were at least as well connected and enjoyed the same purchasing power as Gates or Soros. (In fact, if we consider antiquity, the very wealthy or connected were able to purchase outright the ability to control strips of land the size of modern nations, including control over its citizens. Whatever else Soros might be able to buy, he can’t shell out enough for the rights to buy and sell people.)
Though I’ve not looked into it, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the percentage of the population that falls into the category of “wealthy” is increasing over time — which I would take to be a powerful statement about the incentives to reach such a level. As well as about the ability for mobility among the people that live in a system that does exhibit such variance in income. Additionally, this means that the political size of the wealthy is growing. While this may sound like a recipe for concentration, it could also be a condition for decentralization: as the set of “wealthy” gets larger, the preferences are going to be more varied, making the group less of a monolithic political bloc.
I think the idea of equality as a social good isn’t too useful if we simply allow any form of equality to be entered into the debate. After all, isn’t the caste system simply a belief that you get from life enough to equal whatever station you are born into? It’s equality of birthright. Now, someone else has determined those rights, but all levels are equaled out according to some rule. Disagree with the rule, certainly, but at least a concept of “equality” is being professed.
Which means that there must be more and less valid NOTIONS of equality. Equality of outcome was tried and failed miserably in Socialism. But it was equality. Was that better off for attempting equality as a social good than, say, a monarchical system run by primogeniture and patronage? Feudal times were no picnic, but didn’t starve tens of millions of people to death.
Great post, A.L. I don’t have to tell you that the current government policy is geared towards a massive transfer of the tax burden from wealth to wage-recipients, and that the “ownership society” is a code word for eviscerating all government programs that foster upward social mobility.
Ian, can you quantify what it means that the percentage of people who are “wealthy” is increasing? Real wages have been stagnant under the current regime.
Incidentally, your claim “Feudal times were no picnic, but didn’t starve tens of millions of people to death.” is dubious. I know it’s fun to snicker about the failures of Socialism, but next time, read up on the Great Famine of the 14th Century first. (I’d also like to know how socialism is to blame for the better-known Irish Potato Famine.)
Feudalism did cause lots of deaths, and its rigid class structure was poor for the economy overall. Unless of course if you were a member of the elite. In which case you got things pretty good, in terms of power relative to everyone else.
And socialism is still bad, Andrew. The real question is how much of it you want, or dare, to let seep into your free market system in order to maintain some balance of equality.
how to achieve equality
We all agree that equality of some sort is an important public good. The question really is how. The inequality in the education system in the US is simply immoral. By fixing that inequality, we’ll probably be well on our way to fixing much inequality in the US.
wealth doesn’t last too long
Under the current economic environment, wealth simply does not last too long. Thomas Stanley brought up a good point in _Millionaire_Next_Door_ that wealth does not last too long because the prodigal son/daughter will quickly eat up all of your money. Paris Hilton comes to mind (she is a net loss for her father.) With consumption being the cultural norm, it is difficult for the rich to pass down their spendthrift ways along with the trust fund. As long as we keep up our system of consumption as a marketing strategy, and bring back the inheritance tax, this “super-rich” will probably stabilize at some ratio. 1% of us will control 60% of wealth, but the 60% club will change its membership pretty often. [eg, how much money do the Rockefellers still have? Will they still have their money after another hundred years?]
Poor immigrants usually remake themselves within 3 generations. Why doesn’t this apply to the general population?
We just need to make sure that there are few barriers to entry into this 60% club and help the poor save some more money.
Well, as I said, it’s not something I’ve looked into too closely. But my point about the number of people moving into the class of wealthy is simply a thought about the fact that there may well have been more movement from the middle to upper classes in recent history than, say, 60, 75, or more years ago (anecdotally, do we remember the Morgans and Rockefellers not only because of their business practices but also because the club of truly wealthy was so much smaller?). To say that wages have been stagnant recently is to measure, I believe, the ranking of wage growth against inflation or price growth. This doesn’t say that there hasn’t been large movement into higher and higher tax brackets — more movement than previously seen.
The point about deaths under Socialism isn’t about the total number of people dead, but about the reason people died. In the case of the 14th century, the potato famine and others, widespread misery and depridation arose because of inability to deal with harsh weather, poor harvesting technologies, inefficient farming or land use, and more, mostly to greater extent than any sort of coordinated design of lords and landowners (though, certainly, they were not really benevolent as a class). This is in comparison to Socialism, where the purposeful attempt to equal out the lives of citizens was the direct cause of the misery of the people. Horrendous governance led to shortages, retarded technology development, inefficient public service, and, horribly, concentration of political power allowing for real oppression of the people.
In Feudalism, it wasn’t the attempt at equality among the population that caused the loss of life, whereas under Socialism it was, to a large extent. AL’s concern about not having some sort of concept of “equality” programmed into the social fabric struck me as odd, if we allow the definition to include any form of equality. Can the Feudal system be ranked as less desireable than Socialism/Communism simply because the order didn’t include an explicit concept of equality as a social good?
Downward social mobility from the plutocrat class is largely a myth. Paris Hilton doesn’t have to work for a living, and her children won’t either. The point of that example? Trolling for Google hits? I think the Vanderbilts are the only great American fortune completely squandered.
Downward social mobility from the middle class, OTOH, is surely on the rise. That class depended on inexpensive quality public education, Social Security and defined-benefit pensions so that families did not have to divert resources from children to seniors, and other programs antithetical to the “ownership society”. Maybe ten percent of the middle class will move up under the new program, the rest will fall back. So far, the bubble of the housing market and cash-back re-fis has disguised this. (What happens when the structural deficit raises real interest rates?) I repeat, real wages are stagnant right now. Upward mobility is greatly decreased.
Here are some numbers worth talking about:
Real Income Increases, by Quintile
(last column is for the top 5%)
1973-2000
117.79% 118.66% 120.93% 130.76% 159.78% 186.00%
Clinton
116.75% 115.83% 115.07% 115.11% 119.72% 123.75%
Bush I
93.10% 93.71% 94.98% 96.39% 95.54% 93.86%
Reagan
103.97% 108.84% 110.21% 111.85% 121.90% 135.06%
Carter
100.72% 102.99% 102.80% 103.38% 103.58% 101.52%
Nixon/Ford
101.43% 97.12% 97.50% 98.42% 96.84% 93.99%
Adapted from here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h03.html
Reynolds is rich, is it any wonder the arrogent bastard would make such an argument?
Down with Reynolds! Let us unite against his kingdom.
Let it be the force to misplace the aristo-pundit into lowly poverty, then ask his opinion on the matter.
Down with Reynolds.
Down with Reynolds.
Down with the aristo-pundits!
it is criminally blind to think that we’re all getting richer. he obviously kwnos nothing
Down with Reynolds!
“Aristo-pundits?” Heh. I like that.
“Downward social mobility from the middle class, OTOH, is surely on the rise. That class depended on inexpensive quality public education, Social Security and defined-benefit pensions so that families did not have to divert resources from children to seniors, and other programs antithetical to the “ownership society” ”
That doesn’t make any sense. Social Security requires families to divert resources from themselves and their children to seniors; that’s the whole point of the program.
And how could families “depend” on defined-benefit pensions, which simply holds back part of one’s earnings and replaces them with an IOU?
“Maybe ten percent of the middle class will move up under the new program, the rest will fall back. So far, the bubble of the housing market and cash-back re-fis has disguised this.”
The “bubble” of the housing market is actually a reflection of rising costs and regulations imposed on developers, many of which are specifically designed to prevent the construction of cheap housing, and others of which have other stated purposes but the same effect. Couple that with a deliberate reduction in the amount of land available for construction, and you’ll see that your housing “bubble” is a lot more substantial than you might think.
Now one of the main reasons we need income inequality is very simple. The rich are our beta testers. New products are first developed at high cost for them. They play with it for a while and the bugs are worked out of it. When the non-rich look on in envy, the Henry Fords of the world see that they can make huge profits by making a cheaper version of the “luxury” item that average people can use. Further research and development makes that happen, and the luxury item is now a basic, mass market commodity that everyone has. Then the rich get a new toy, and the whole cycle begins again.
That’s how that car got in your driveway.
I have a feeling I’m taking someone’s bait, but I would argue that it’s not “criminally blind” to say that we’re getting richer. For one thing, richer isn’t the same thing as “rich”. Again, to me this is about purchasing power at certain levels and the affordability of certain goods.
As for the question of movement, I’m not sure these are the best measures of what I’m talking about. The issues of quintile movement, if that’s what you’re referring to, are a bit problmatic since the cohort that makes up quintiles isn’t constant over tieme (making intertemporal review of the group sort of meaningless). It’s hard to view the tax brackets as castes of the same kinds of people all the time.
The most recent thing (NB: I REALLY don’t pretend to be a labor economist and haven’t vetted this stuff at all; just trying to throw some stuff out for the debtate) I could find that included numbers on movements of individuals through brackets has some of the largest slippage in the top quintile, which seems to me a function of poeple moving jobs based on items OTHER than salary (a person can choose a job they care more about for a 50% pay cut if they just made a couple million a year and can live off investments, for instance). The movement up quartiles is pretty interesting. Though, I suppose the numbers for the 90s would have some hard drops since the internet bust has shoved a number of people down the ladder (from having compensations far beyond their value, i would argue).
But this sort of misses the point of the post. Nothing in this really indicates that we’re in the verge of losing any sense of equality as a social good. Rather, it seems the US has chosen to strive more for equality of opportunity than for equality of outcomes of uniformity of observances across the population. (As compared to, say, Europe as viewed by income distribution.)
The risk of the very wealthy buying disproportionate political power is real. But,
isn’t there also some risk, and current problem, with the politically becoming very wealthy while nominally in “public service”?
If we democraticly elect representative members of the public to serve for a term or two and then return to abide by the rules they have made, with no more resources than those available to their peers, then we have one kind of government. If we elect elites to hold office as a career, to remain exempt from the rules the rest of us perforce respect, and to garner ever-increasing wealth from benefit of their fame, connections, and influence, we have a very different, and less “equal” sort of government. And if we routinely allow older office-holders to pass their office down to family members, (Sr Senator Gore to Junior, Sr President Bush to Junior, Senior Representative Armey to Junior, and I don’t even want to THINK ’bout wives like Mrs Clinton, Mrs Dole, Mrs Carnahan, Mrs Bono, etc etc etc.) we get a still less equal and less democratic government.
For some reason, I’m more concerned about the long terms effect of professional hereditary political classes than the effects of inherited wealth. But that’s maybe just me.
First paragraph, read ” …with the politically POWERFUL becoming very…”
Why stop with income inequality? Surely talent, looks, intelligence, and wit are just as deserving of being redistributed? I think anyone with over a d-cup should be forced to either bind their breasts, or endure reduction surgery, in order to prevent isolation and stratification of b-cup and lower women. That may seem like a silly argument, but it doesn’t seem any sillier to me than claiming that those people who have become wealthy are undeserving of it, and should be forced to give up the fruits of their labor to someone who has not worked for it.
If I work harder than someone else, I want to make more money than they do. Redistributing income reduces incentive to work harder – both for the person having their pay taken away, and for the person receiving their unearned funds. I’m in favor of helping those with the lowest incomes move up, but we need some inequality of income to encourage hard work, innovation, and the desire to improve your condition.
I’d rather see barriers to entry in the workforce reduced (does anyone seriously think that an Admin Assistant position should require a bachelor’s degree?), with employers more willing to take on inexperienced, but willing to learn employees and train them. After all, if a family is just getting a EITC check, their condition may improve temporarily, but you haven’t given them anything that will allow them to move up the income scale – like training or incentive to work.
While increasing income inequality is a concern there are other related concerns that bother me more. Remember income and wealth are two different things. I’m concerned about the enormous concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few over the last 25 or so years reversing the trends of the previous 50. When this trend is combined with the increasing tendency of wealth to derive from the ownership of intellectual property it’s a real concern. Copyrights are pretty much eternal now.
The other concern is what to do. From where I sit it appears to me that the wealthy of today are not those who create vast financial empires by dint of their own genius and sweat but those who are able to cannily “play” the government in one form or another. IBM is IBM because of patents pure and simple. Bill Gates is Bill Gates because of copyrights (not to mention sharp trading practices).
The solution to this would not seem to be re-distribution from a benevolent centralized government–the more powerful and wealthy the centralized government the greater the rewards and opportunities for “playing” the system. But those most in favor of re-distribution seem to be those most in favor or increasing the rewards for playing the system.
I guess I’m just a romantic Jeffersonian (not in the Mead sense) yearning for the contemporary equivalent of hardy “yeoman farmers”. Sigh.
The essential problem with equality of outcomes as a principle; and that is the principle at root of concern with growing inequality and a desire to take political steps to redistribute in order to narrow and ultimately eliminate it (IMO it’s going to be hard to find a principled reason to narrow it but stop short of working towards eliminating it) is that, as a result of the disincentives that occur, one may very well leave the poor *worse* off than they would have been otherwise. By disincentivizing people making a buck by providing a service that grows the pie for everyone and improves peoples lives over time, one reduces overall growth.
This reminds me of watching the Democratic debates: they never mention profits in an approving context (unless Ben & Jerry’s comes up, I guess). The idea that someone might do well provinding a service that improves peoples lives is, ultimately, philosophically anathema to those whos primary concern is for equality of outcomes (in income, for example) rather than equality of opportunity to get ahead and theirby help everyone get ahead as well.
America is more unequal in incomes than most any European Social Democracy one can think of, and yet as referenced here, are by many measures statistically better off than the typical Parisian, Londoner, Viennese, or Athenian. Not the “poor” of Paris et al: the poorest American is on par with the average of those places. And their economies are again moribund, such growth as does take place driven by exports rather than by domestic demand (improving the lives of their own citizens, who then purchace more).
I, personally, am far from a wealthy member of this country, but I think my life is far better than it would have been if, instead of following the path we’ve been on, politicians were out there making sure I had “more” by taking from some other person who had “more than his fair share” and transfering it to me (with a large dollup of sticky-fingered friction involved: that is, most of such transfers never make it to the supposed benefitiaries, they get spent supporting the bureaucratic infrastructure which is built to minister other people’s lives, through Social Worker Full Employment Acts and the like).
One other important thing I forgot to say, though:
Being against redistribution as such does not mean one loses a rationale for assistance programs, however: it just means that support for them is based on other grounds – real need, for example. Help is given not on the grounds that some have too much and it should be given to others who have less, but programs appraised on whether their is a need people have and how best to serve that need (and it may not mean a federal program, or a state program, but it may mean just that). Those things are then done for their own intrinsic worth, not on the grounds of inequality vs equality.
So one can still, IMO, be a Democrat and a Liberal even if one accepts that a policy of redistribution for its own sake is not one worth pursuing.
One reason people remember the Rockefellers is that John D. had his workers shot down by his security forces. Another may be because the Governor of N.Y. had prisoners shot down while they were incarcerated, and that a well-known author witnessed it.
Andy,
Regarding Paris Hilton & Downward social mobility from the 60% club:
[Using Hilton ‘cuz saw the premier of the Simple Life recently] Maybe Hilton (as prodigal daughter) will not spend all of her trust fund. Maybe her kid will not, either. But most likely, her trust fund will be gone w/ her grandkids. Is Hilton adding to her trust fund in any way? The answer is a conclusive no. Will her children copy her spendy ways? Most likely yes. Kids learn to consume from their parents. Therefore, inexorably, the Hilton family fortune will disappear probably within 100 yrs.
[If Hilton’s parents taught her to be productive, then she would be a more productive person than she apparently is. Wait… Is she receiving royalties from her videos?]
You know, looking at this post, I’m thinking that instead of going ballistic on Willis, you should have just said that “Liberal” sometimes means different things to different people and that your record speaks for itself.
That said, you do tend to blog more about where you differ from Dems than where you agree, but posts that say “Mr. A says ‘xyz’ and I concur” or “Indeed” get boring in a hurry. Analysis and thinking out loud are some of the things that make blogs interesting.
Nice to see you finding a point of disagreement with “the other side” and blogging about it. I’m sure there’s plenty more where that comes from. I’d like to read it.
Armed Liberal,
Your “biggest concern” is that we are “near a tipping point” when it comes to “diffusion of power”. You worry about (rather, you believe in) bad effects this will have on “civil society”. You “think” that too much “isolation and stratification” exist now, and people who don’t share your belief in redistribution as a remedy to all this “frighten” you.
I have no doubt that these are all very sincere beliefs, thoughts, and fears which you hold.
My question to you is, what, if anything, any of these concepts have to do with the real world outside of your thoughts. Can you define “stratification” for me? “diffusion of power”? “civil society”? in such a way as to make it possible for me to check up on whether your fears are valid or bunk, accurate or inaccurate? Is anything you’re saying falsifiable or even definable?
What is this magical “tipping point” and how do you know it even necessarily exists or is well-defined? (Does human society follow the laws of thermodynamics?) Let alone, how would one go about trying to evaluate whether we are “past” that “tipping point” or not there yet? When you say you “think” we are approaching the “tipping point” could you ever be, even in principle, disproven, by being shown enough charts and graphs or whatever?
The problem here is that these are all just a bunch of hunches and beliefs and fears you have (at best; at worse they’re phony rationalizations), dressed up as some kind of pseudoscientific justification for “redistribution”. You make it sound like “redistribution” needs to exist for rational, almost mathematical reasons, i.e. because some equations somewhere show that “redistribution” is necessary to remedy/improve some (supposedly) natural/inevitable tendencies of society. But upon inspection your definitions and arguments are so fuzzy and unrelated to anything empirically rooted in the real world that one starts to wonder whether the *real* reason “redistribution” needs to exist is that you *want* it to exist in order to mollify these fears that you and other “liberals” (leftists) have.
Your argument is virtually identical to the argument “There is a point beyond which society offends God. My biggest concern is that we are past that point. Policy X is therefore necessary to prevent offense against God resulting in us all going to Hell, and people who argue against Policy X – thus, God – frighten me.” Just make the replacements
“Policy X” -> “redistribution”,
“God getting offended” -> “society getting more ‘stratified’/’isolated'”,
“going to Hell” -> “damage to ‘civil society'”.
There is little difference between the two arguments because neither “God gets offended” nor “society gets more ‘stratified’ / ‘civil society’ gets damaged” are any more verifiable than the other. There is no way to argue against either argument with logic because in both cases they are ultimately based on belief.
What’s also worth emphasizing is something Porphyrogenitus brings up on his blog which is that arguably the “without more equality society will break down” argument is self-fulfilling. In cases when and where civil society does break down whatever that means, it’s usually a mistake to ignore the role played by intelligentsia constantly yammering “we need more equality or civil society is gonna break down!” in the whole process. As Porphy says, it’s a chicken-and-egg thing. If people didn’t tacitly justify, in authoritative-sounding pseudo scientific arguments, the idea of Breaking Down Civil Society Because Of Not Enough Equality, would it actually happen?
Blixa –
Help me out a bit; can you explain what you mean by “concepts” and “real world”??
Given that we can’t agree on what language we’re speaking, or on relatively common metaphors, I’m not wildly hopeful that we’ll have a fruitful conversation.
When I get a chance, I’ll see if I can “respond”.
A.L.
It’s appealing to think that dynasties that produce fluffheads will wither away, but there’s little reason to think that it’s true. You act as if P.H.’s trust fund is some fixed kitty, and unless she works herself, it’s monotonically declining. Except in real life, there’s interest and dividends and capital gains (remember, the current Administration is dedicated to removing all taxes from these forms of income that are available to wage-dependent families only in small quantity), not to mention capital appreciation. There’s no longer any need to worry about a bite from estate taxes, either. I wouldn’t be surprised if debauchée or no she ends a typical year richer than she started.
AFAIK, but I admit I am far from an expert, the Vanderbilts are the only dynasty to squander their fortune completely.
[Important aside to praktike: you’ve labeled the table incorrectly. Your number is the percentage of the later figure over the base figure. To calculate increase you have to subtract 100%. For example, all five quintiles lost real median income in the Bush Sr. Administration.]
If I’m starving, live in an uninsulated tar paper shack, and every day watch my children fall further behind because of lack of education, you can bet that money could highly influence my political position.
Now put my family in a decent house, my children having a decent education, enough food to eat, and I would suggest that the sum necessary to buy my vote has not been raised to a high number. It’s been raised to an infinite number.
Inequality of income is dangerous only when the poorer parts of the population are poor enough that they are still buyable. Past a certain point (a fairly low one that most of the US has long passed) we’re influenceable but our votes aren’t for sale in a democracy destroying kind of way.
Armed Liberal,
For one reason or another you’re probably right we won’t have fruitful conversation. My “definition” of the “real world” is that thing that hurts you when you trip and fall. Having said that… 😉
Look, I have no doubt that “there’s too much stratification” and “there’s a tipping point” are indeed relatively common metaphors. But that doesn’t mean there is any actual thought behind them, that they’re based on anything which is measurable or falsifiable, or that they really work as a description or prediction of anything in reality. Metaphors are not reality and reality does not obey metaphors.
I was trying to get you to *think* about what you were saying. Spouting metaphors and pretending that they are some kind of mathematical theorems about human society may have be a convincing argument about something, but I don’t know what.
Again, if you wanted to advance more than just the superficial trappings of a meaningful argument, you would have to do something along the lines of (a) define “stratification” more concretely and measurably (it can, of course, be done, and is done in the social sciences I am sure, but you need to do it), (b) demonstrate that society is indeed getting more “stratified” according to that definition (it’s not a given just because you can point to Bill Gates or whatever; maybe society has gotten *less* “stratified” in the past X years; what’s your rebuttal? you “don’t Think so”??), (c) define “civil society” – of what does it consist?, (d) show (by historical examples or other kind of argument) that too much “stratification” as defined in (a) does indeed tend to do harm to “civil society” as defined in (c) (because how do I know “stratification harms civil society” is even true? what about Soviet Union, did that have a good “civil society”? if so, why should I care about “civil society”?), and (e) show that efforts at “redistribution” do more good than the harm they do in (d).
You seem to object to my requiring all this because it’s easier just to use metaphor. yeah, I know it’s easier…. it also means that you’re just telling us some stuff you Believe. Which is fine and dandy, but not a “defense of redistribution” by any means. Best,
– Lost $140K job last January (laid off)
– 1 interview in 12 months
– Too qualified (or maybe really too old) for lower jobs
– Unemployment benefits maxed
– Savings are gone
– Health Insurance is now too expensive
– Credit will start eroding this month
– Family relationships strained to the max
Options: Underground economy? Life of Crime? Armed Insurrection?
Blixa-
Well, thanks for agreeing that conversation would be pointless, anyway…
I’d almost be willing to jump into this – noting that answering your questions would be better material for a dissertation than a blog post, and that a sense of ‘appropriate levels of detail’ is a key part of participation in dialog…
…except that you can’t concieve of a nonquantitative understanding of ‘civil society’.
I’ll suggest Kevin Phillips’ work as a starting place for reading about inequality; Arrogant Capital is a favorite of mine.
On civil society, boy I don’t know where to begin. Can I suggest Aristotle’s Politics?
A.L.
How liberal.
Can’t get the rich to do with their money as you please so you want government guns to do some stealing for you.
Why not be an honest thief and do your own stealing?
OK enough for the polemics. Will and Ariel Durant say that during times of business expansion in liberal countries the rich will do better than the poor and the inequality gap will increase even as the poor become better off.
The way to put a stop to this sort of thing is to end liberal democracy.
Hayek explained it all better in 1944 in his book “the Road to Serfdom”.
You want to become a serf? Institute a government program to steal from the rich. The rule is, as far as anyone can tell, universal. Once the government gets used to oppressing the rich it starts defining “rich” down.
What exactly is liberal about wanting to turn a nation of free men into a nation of serfs?
One of the resons I stopped being a “liberal” a long time ago.
As far as I can tell there are only two reasons to be a liberal. Youth or ignorance.
Armed Liberal —
I realize this is late and you won’t see this, but I just saw your response, and for the record:
I certainly wasn’t asking for a “quantitative” definition of civil society. I’m happy to just interpret your use of “civil society” in the way it is usually understood, as used by those authors you pointed to, etc. But then if I do that it’s not clear how or why “stratification”, whatever that is, necessarily “harms” civil society. (This would, for one thing, depend on your definition of “stratification”….)
Alternatively, I can be convinced to accept your assertion that “stratification” harms “civil society”, because perhaps (for all I know) you are using a specific definition of “civil society” (like: “a state of being non-stratified”) which makes it obvious or even tautological that it’s harmed by “stratification”. But, then I’d need to know what your definition (of “civil society”) is – which is why I asked.
It’s your call. But there remains a gap there which would need to be bridged if you ever wanted to construct something like an *argument* for redistribution, rather than just a statement of *belief* in redistribution, which whether you recognize it or not is what you have advanced here (“I think that the kind of isolation and stratification that we’re talking about is here, now”). The point is that nobody could ever convince you to “think” otherwise, apparently, because there’s no evidence here that what you “think” is based on anything empirical or (even approximately) measurable. You may as well just have written “I like redistribution” and left it at that. Best,