Great talk on big ideas abc24 by economist and nobel laureate joseph stiglitz on right now for any night owls.
And for you morning goats, you can listen to it here- http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2014/07/30/4057169.htm
Ah, the smell of fascist ideology in the morning. "Fascism combats, and must combat, without respite or pity, not intelligence, but intellectualismwhich is, as I have indicated, a sickness of the intellect" - Giovanni Gentile
Stiglitz is a socialist technocrat who believes that the solution to any problem is more government regulation or spending. Income inequality is a frequently abused term. It is a natural thing (not least of which because income differs as individuals age and move through their careers). In general, the "gap" between the poorest and the richest is irrelevant. What matters is whether the welfare of the poorest is getting better through time (which it clearly has been). Inequality is a topic worth exploring, but attempts to tackle inequality simply for the sake of inequality is misguided and damaging. In his book, Stiglitz quite rightly put a large focus on inequality due to rent seeking (he had an entire chapter on this topic). Rent seeking abuses the power of the government to causes monopoly rents, government subsidies, corporate welfare, patent rights, et cetera. Rent seeking can also limit competition by instituting adverse regulation and licencing laws. These things are all suboptimal, economically inefficient, immoral and legitimate causes for concern. Given they are created as a result of government failure, they are not solved by yet more government intervention which is where Stiglitz completely misses the point. Stiglitz also completely misunderstands the causes of the financial crisis. He is actually very myopic in this area, disregarding any contrary evidence to his technocratic desires to tighten government control over money supply. Stiglitz is a dangerous fool. He ignores the learnings from economics over the past 140 years and believes that man can organise society as he pleases. He is from the school that if social conditions do not fulfill the wishes of the reformers like himself, if his utopia is proved unrealisable, then the fault is the moral failure of man. He believes that what is needed to construct the ideal society is good princes and virtuous citizens and with righteous men any utopia can be achieved. This is not how individuals act and is not how peaceful, prosperous societies are formed (just ask Stalin, Mao, Che, Mugabe etc). As Hayek said, "the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
Ethically it matters how someone's wealth was obtained. If it was by voluntary exchanges that benefitted millions of others then the amount of wealth or income they have is irrelevant. They have already contributed to society by making the lives of millions better through millions of free exchanges for cheaper or better food, energy, cement, entertainment, housing, computers etc. We should prosecute theft but we should not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Gini coefficients are not what matters. Rather the enrichment of millions of people by bringing them out of extreme poverty with short life expectancies is what matters. Taxing the rich or stealing their property does not help the poor. It never has and it never will. Only the accumulation of capital geared in ever more innovative ways to supplying the wants and needs of consumers can do that - and time and time again, reality has shown that freedom and individual rights are what provide such. Never in the history of the world has a nation taxed itself into prosperity.
Giovanni Gentile (the source of the above quote) was a philosopher who is considered to have established the basis of fascist ideology of which anti-intellectualism is a key tenant. He was the ghostwriter of Mussolini's A Doctrine of Fascism amongst other key tracts. He was shot dead in 1944 by anti-fascist partisans. Modern day anti-intellectualism is being encouraged by the small cadre of ultra-wealthy fascist elites who see science and intellectualism as a threat to their power and who believe their interests and their wealth are best served through the strengthening in our society of the core ideological elements of fascism: nationalism, social Darwinism, absolute power of leadership principle, anti-liberalism, anti-egalitarianism, anti-democracy, intolerance, glorification of war, the supremacy of the state and anti-intellectualism. Hundreds of millions of dollars of propaganda, deep rooted political & media influence and cabals of conservative activist groups and thinktanks have brought about a large population of useful idiots (someone who supports one side of an ideological debate, but who is manipulated and held in contempt by the leaders of their faction or is unaware of the ultimate agenda driving the ideology to which they subscribe), denialists and faux-skeptics who rage against perceived scientific conspiracies and (manufactured) uncertainties where none exist, and who through blind self-interest develop an intense indignation for the "evils" of social justice in a progressive society. These self-righteous combatants against science and intellectualism are pawns in a far bigger game, they are the foot soldiers of fascism.
My comment wasn't anti-intellectual. If I see the words "economist" and "Nobel" in a sentence together I ignore them, because generally, its because of economists who have won the Nobel prize that we are in the screwed up mess we are in. Inequality of wealth is a ruse for thievery. Nothing more. Economists like Stiglitz believe that they have the capacity to determine how much wealth every member in society should have. They believe you can take the wealth of one person and give it to another via force. I'll ask you this Silverpete, how much should be taken from the wealthy and given to the poor? Who is considered wealthy? Who is not? Whose wealth is claimable, whose is protected? What about the poor in other countries like Ethiopia, do they have a claim on your wealth? Should everyone be equally wealthy? What level of inequality in wealth is acceptable? What is not? Who should decide how wealth should be redistributed? None of these questions can be answered adequately.
Yeah, and actually the Nobel for Economics is a bit of a bullshit one and was added later Its simple: there should be an optimal distribution or wealth that is both fair and that contributes to the further advancement of society. Or stated differently, 42. The actual details will require a planet-scale computer incorporating living beings into its computational matrix and will need to run for ten million years. Five minutes before the answer is complete, the computer will be destroyed by Vogons.
It is simple and George Orwell' animal farm demonstrated what happens when you allow a group that espouses the optimum distribution mantra. Once the lefties get into the public trough they are very difficult to shift because the vast majority of the public are draft horses to their detriment. Comrade I'd suggest you separate your feet bend right foreward as far as you can and wedge that pointed cranium between your cheeks and push until the sun no longer shines. Kind Regards non recourse
Comrade, did the number 42 not tip you off? Well, DON'T PANIC! Let me explain the story so far... In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Then it gets kinda long so I'll skip to the point as someone described it: "Saying that 42 is the answer is to indicate not merely that there is no answer, but that you're an ass for having asked in the first place."
^ That Marvin looks like a chick. No wonder he was paranoid. Travelling to the end of the universe with a horny two-headed dude and a weirdo in pyjamas looking for somewhere to plug his kettle in would probably do that
