Hello! Will Wilkinson is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- willwilkinson.net/flybottle Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Also, as another NZer, a lot of NZ land is very hilly and remote, so unless you go to the really heavy-capital investment of terracing the hillsides it only makes economic sense to raise sheep.
- The two other <a href="http://www.nfcuorginfo.com">nfcu</a> Harbor Police vessels continued the search alongside the Coast Guard, U.S. Navy and Mexican Navy until 5 a.m....
- Congratulations! , john :)
- I really like the article in this site. To the topic, many people voluntarily apply insurance for losses on cars and their homes, but it is not possible to buy lifetime health insurance which would...
- I think Will was talking about the actually poor (as in starving africans), not the relatively poor americans.
Jump to original thread »
Jeff of “A Banner Coward” cannot fathom while Obama’s anti-globalization rhetoric bothered Megan and me:
Letâs take, say, an assembly line worker who has just been laid off so the factory he worked in can open up shop in India. Is he expected to lo ... Continue reading »
Letâs take, say, an assembly line worker who has just been laid off so the factory he worked in can open up shop in India. Is he expected to lo ... Continue reading »
1 year ago
Must redistribution be negative-sum? Couldn't the benefit to the recipients and the positive externalities of an income floor/safety net outweigh the costs? (Imagine a pro-growth, free market economy with a small basic income grant, or something.)
Also, any sense of how a dollar increase in average wealth translates into an increase in the average wealth for, say, the bottom quintile. I doubt it's one for one. Any thoughts?
1 year ago
If you're using redistribution to solve a collective action problem, then it could be positive sum. If it's just an income transfer from one class to another, then that's pretty much the definition of zero sum, and its almost certainly negative sum in reality.
You can make an argument about transfers being positive sum in utility terms, due to considerations of declining marginal utility, but usually this ignores the distinction between the value over time of wealth invested and wealth consumed.
A dollar increase in the average surely doesn't go wholly or even mostly to the bottom quintile. The bottom quintile may get the least of it. But if trade leaves the bottom quintile no less well off in real terms, which it does (free trade pushes prices down), then the trade game is broadly positive sum. There are always short-term distributional winners and losers in a dynamic system, but as long as the system leaves most everyone a winner in the long-term, relative to the relevant alternative systems, there is no reasonable ground for discontent.
I can imagine an scenario in which a BIG would have long-term positive externalities FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE TRANSFER SYSTEM (maybe we see this in Scandinavia? Again, I don't see this as broadly generalizable.) But then one creates a problem in policing membership in the system. You create a clear in-group and a clear out-group in the way trade does not.
1 year ago
That's the only reason I can imagine (well, apart from deliberate deceit) for using it in that way and in that context.
The last thing Fascist economics does is say "hey, it's okay if our citizens lose jobs, because some guy across the world's better off". Fascist economics is all about not having to trade for anything by acquiring all necessary resources by conquest, or by other means such as replacement technologies. Self-sufficiency is the core, not trade or mutual advantage, as the Fascist worldview is of the war of all against all, at the level of the Volk. (Cf. "Lebensraum", the Nazi drive for the Ploesti oilfields, etc.)