<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Inequality: Does Anyone Really Care?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/02/inequality-does-anyone-really-care/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/02/inequality-does-anyone-really-care/</link>
	<description>Just another geek in the geek kingdom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:47:34 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Consumatopia</title>
		<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/02/inequality-does-anyone-really-care/comment-page-1/#comment-1605</link>
		<dc:creator>Consumatopia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2007 05:04:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1586#comment-1605</guid>
		<description>I never found the Maximin principle particularly compelling.  Instead, I tend to go with a utilitarian summing of welfares, and combine that with the rather obvious notion that the diminishing value of marginal returns applies strongly to income.

Combine that with your view of inequality as a symptom of a problem rather than as a problem, and the immense wealth and luxury of the rich is good evidence that redistribution towards the poor &lt;i&gt;and/or the middle class&lt;/i&gt; would be an improvement in aggregate utility.

I suspect my view is the dominant intuition behind egalitarians, and your final sentence is simply inapplicable to us.

Also, dismissing political equality as instrumental without evidence seems kind of bizarre given how much emphasis we put in democracies on &quot;one person, one vote&quot;.  There are more zero-sum games in politics than economics, and your loss of influence is almost always someone else&#039;s gain in influence.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never found the Maximin principle particularly compelling.  Instead, I tend to go with a utilitarian summing of welfares, and combine that with the rather obvious notion that the diminishing value of marginal returns applies strongly to income.</p>
<p>Combine that with your view of inequality as a symptom of a problem rather than as a problem, and the immense wealth and luxury of the rich is good evidence that redistribution towards the poor <i>and/or the middle class</i> would be an improvement in aggregate utility.</p>
<p>I suspect my view is the dominant intuition behind egalitarians, and your final sentence is simply inapplicable to us.</p>
<p>Also, dismissing political equality as instrumental without evidence seems kind of bizarre given how much emphasis we put in democracies on &#8220;one person, one vote&#8221;.  There are more zero-sum games in politics than economics, and your loss of influence is almost always someone else&#8217;s gain in influence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julian Sanchez</title>
		<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/02/inequality-does-anyone-really-care/comment-page-1/#comment-1604</link>
		<dc:creator>Julian Sanchez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1586#comment-1604</guid>
		<description>Hm.  I&#039;m not actually sure I think there is any objective content to &quot;overpaid&quot; or &quot;underpaid.&quot;  I mean, you can use the terms contextually to mean &quot;paid more/less than the prevailing rate,&quot; and I suppose you could say someone &quot;overpaid&quot; for a resource if, counter to expectations, it ended up generating less value than its price.  But for the most part, it&#039;s not even (just) that I don&#039;t want the government determining what the case is; I doubt there&#039;s an independent fact-of-the-matter to determine.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hm.  I&#8217;m not actually sure I think there is any objective content to &#8220;overpaid&#8221; or &#8220;underpaid.&#8221;  I mean, you can use the terms contextually to mean &#8220;paid more/less than the prevailing rate,&#8221; and I suppose you could say someone &#8220;overpaid&#8221; for a resource if, counter to expectations, it ended up generating less value than its price.  But for the most part, it&#8217;s not even (just) that I don&#8217;t want the government determining what the case is; I doubt there&#8217;s an independent fact-of-the-matter to determine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven</title>
		<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/02/inequality-does-anyone-really-care/comment-page-1/#comment-1603</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2007 05:32:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1586#comment-1603</guid>
		<description>Julian,

Interesting post.  I would say that I am roughly concerned with income distribution, but not necessarily with what we might call income equality.  It seems to me that you can get behind the idea that it is problematic if a large swath of the public, let&#039;s just call them &quot;middle class America&quot; without being too precise for now, is not getting what they are worth, and that this does not really need a comprehensive moral doctrine to advocate.  This could be for lots of reasons, but lets just imagine that the middle class is being underpaid for performance due to a lot of bad institutional arrangements in both the business and political world.  Now, I am sympathetic to what I suspect is your chief worry: the state is not someone we want to get too involved in deciding who is &quot;overpaid&quot; and who is &quot;underpaid.&quot;  I happen to think that we ought to proceed with the presumption that such a fear is a very credible one.  However, I also think that at some point, our entire political arrangement gets threatened if there becomes too much long term transfer of proportional wealth from the middle class to elsewhere because the Commercial Republic works pretty well at being unoffensive to almost every citizen in almost every situation because the interests of the vast American middle class mirror &quot;the public good&quot; generally pretty decently.  Once we disempower the middle class too much, we threaten the equality that really matters: political equality.  This is, for me, why the alarm bells go off when I examine recent economic data.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Julian,</p>
<p>Interesting post.  I would say that I am roughly concerned with income distribution, but not necessarily with what we might call income equality.  It seems to me that you can get behind the idea that it is problematic if a large swath of the public, let&#8217;s just call them &#8220;middle class America&#8221; without being too precise for now, is not getting what they are worth, and that this does not really need a comprehensive moral doctrine to advocate.  This could be for lots of reasons, but lets just imagine that the middle class is being underpaid for performance due to a lot of bad institutional arrangements in both the business and political world.  Now, I am sympathetic to what I suspect is your chief worry: the state is not someone we want to get too involved in deciding who is &#8220;overpaid&#8221; and who is &#8220;underpaid.&#8221;  I happen to think that we ought to proceed with the presumption that such a fear is a very credible one.  However, I also think that at some point, our entire political arrangement gets threatened if there becomes too much long term transfer of proportional wealth from the middle class to elsewhere because the Commercial Republic works pretty well at being unoffensive to almost every citizen in almost every situation because the interests of the vast American middle class mirror &#8220;the public good&#8221; generally pretty decently.  Once we disempower the middle class too much, we threaten the equality that really matters: political equality.  This is, for me, why the alarm bells go off when I examine recent economic data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin O'Reilly</title>
		<link>http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/02/inequality-does-anyone-really-care/comment-page-1/#comment-1602</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin O'Reilly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:57:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1586#comment-1602</guid>
		<description>Julesy, good analysis even if it is helping out the other side. One point you may underestimate is how deeply liberals believe that rich-getting-richer really is hurting the middle class and how the middle class, too, is deserving of lots of social help -- if not total egalitarian-type redistribution. Witness, for example, the Democrats&#039; quick move to cut interest rates on college student loans.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Julesy, good analysis even if it is helping out the other side. One point you may underestimate is how deeply liberals believe that rich-getting-richer really is hurting the middle class and how the middle class, too, is deserving of lots of social help &#8212; if not total egalitarian-type redistribution. Witness, for example, the Democrats&#8217; quick move to cut interest rates on college student loans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
