So the discussion is not about whether the basic principle is true or not
Huh? From a normative point of view I see no reasons why poor countries should be “more on the right” and wealthy countries should be “more on the left”.
I don’t know about normative, but I’m assuming the same reason given in the post—because for poor countries high growth is a priority, whereas for rich countries reducing inequality is more valuable.
because for poor countries high growth is a priority, whereas for rich countries reducing inequality is more valuable.
Two questions. One, are you using “poor” and “rich” in absolute or relative sense? Given a society, how would it decide whether it is poor or whether it is rich?
Two, why is high growth more valuable than reducing inequality for poor countries, but it’s the reverse in rich countries? Contemporary poor countries often have more inequality than the rich ones, and surely the plight of the poor people in the poor countries is much more acute than in rich?
Two questions. One, are you using “poor” and “rich” in absolute or relative sense? Given a society, how would it decide whether it is poor or whether it is rich?
I’m defining absolutely. The society would have to measure its economic productivity in some sense—GDP per capita is probably a reasonable first approximation (though it begs the question of how to denominate it). I take the view that there’s a certain level at which a state pension became worthwhile (that is to say, at which taxing and funding such a thing had positive utility, in some kind of maximising-what-people-value sense), a level at which public education became worthwhile, a level at which public healthcare became worthwhile and so on (or rather, a monotonic relationship between how wealthy the nation is and how much public education it should be funding, and so on), and would expect this to be borne out by utility calculations.
Two, why is high growth more valuable than reducing inequality for poor countries, but it’s the reverse in rich countries? Contemporary poor countries often have more inequality than the rich ones, and surely the plight of the poor people in the poor countries is much more acute than in rich?
The marginal value of wealth increases is much higher for poor countries, whereas the cost and utility of reducing inequality is reasonably constant.
So, from a viewpoint of, say, a couple of hundred years from now, would you say the current Western societies are “rich”? We would probably look as poor to them as pre-industrial Europe looks to us now.
Given the whole arc of human history, absolute measures of wealth look highly suspect to me.
would expect this to be borne out by utility calculations.
Can you give a worked example of such a utility calculation?
the cost and utility of reducing inequality is reasonably constant
Why is that so? The marginal value of wealth increases and the marginal value of reducing poverty should be similar because these effects are similar.
So, from a viewpoint of, say, a couple of hundred years from now, would you say the current Western societies are “rich”? We would probably look as poor to them as pre-industrial Europe looks to us now.
Yes—and we will probably look as right-wing/unsocialist to them as pre-industrial Europe looks to us now.
Can you give a worked example of such a utility calculation?
No. I don’t have the skills to do an explicit calculation, I only have a qualitative impression.
Why is that so? The marginal value of wealth increases and the marginal value of reducing poverty should be similar because these effects are similar.
“reducing poverty” is conflating two things, because general wealth increase also reduces poverty; I’m thinking of “reducing inequality” as the zero- or even negative-sum component of reducing poverty. So for a poorer country the gain to the poor from reducing inequality is larger, but so is the cost to the (relative) rich; the overall effect wouldn’t scale the same way as increasing general wealth does as far as I can see.
we will probably look as right-wing/unsocialist to them as pre-industrial Europe looks to us now.
LOL. Are you quite sure about that? You seem to be remarkably certain that Cthulhu always swims left :-D
I’m thinking of “reducing inequality” as the zero- or even negative-sum component of reducing poverty.
Ah. So if you just hang the top 1% from the lamp posts and throw all their wealth into the sea, that would be a good thing? It would certainly reduce inequality and you seem to be fine with negative-sum approaches to the issue.
You seem to be remarkably certain that Cthulhu always swims left
Certain no, but I think the trend is real.
So if you just hang the top 1% from the lamp posts and throw all their wealth into the sea, that would be a good thing? It would certainly reduce inequality and you seem to be fine with negative-sum approaches to the issue.
If you’re attempting to reduce poverty in a way that’s not increasing overall wealth, then it’s zero- or negative-sum in wealth terms by definition (e.g. redistributive taxation would be zero-sum except for the overhead, so it’s negative-sum). I’m saying that a) some negative-wealth-sum actions (such as redistributive taxation) are positive utility in some circumstances b) an intervention that destroys X amount of wealth (or even X% of wealth) and produces Y amount of utility will be worthwhile in countries that are richer than some threshold and not worthwhile in countries that are poorer than that threshold, because the marginal utility of wealth decreases as you get richer.
(and c) these are the main kind of policies where there is left-right disagreement; everyone supports policies that increase wealth and don’t increase inequality or have other negative effects).
...are positive utility in some circumstances … and produces Y amount of utility
Of course, all this depends on how do you understand and calculate utility. Your statements are true for certain values of “utility” and not true for other values.
...where there is left-right disagreement; everyone supports policies that increase wealth and don’t increase inequality or have other negative effects
That’s actually not true. You are assuming that wealth and inequality are all that people are interested in. Let me suggest to you another value: power. For example, going a bit off the left-right axis we can find statists—people who really like government power and think that the more the better. They don’t necessarily care much about wealth (or about inequality either) -- what they care about is the power of central authority and that’s the yardstick they’ll be using to support (or not) certain policies.
IOW , they don’t admit to it, where “admit” means “admit”, and instead require you to divine their true meaning.
PS are you aware that you admit to being a selfish money grabber every time you say you are a freedom lover who just wants the state to stay out of people’s lives? :-)
Huh? From a normative point of view I see no reasons why poor countries should be “more on the right” and wealthy countries should be “more on the left”.
I don’t know about normative, but I’m assuming the same reason given in the post—because for poor countries high growth is a priority, whereas for rich countries reducing inequality is more valuable.
Two questions. One, are you using “poor” and “rich” in absolute or relative sense? Given a society, how would it decide whether it is poor or whether it is rich?
Two, why is high growth more valuable than reducing inequality for poor countries, but it’s the reverse in rich countries? Contemporary poor countries often have more inequality than the rich ones, and surely the plight of the poor people in the poor countries is much more acute than in rich?
I’m defining absolutely. The society would have to measure its economic productivity in some sense—GDP per capita is probably a reasonable first approximation (though it begs the question of how to denominate it). I take the view that there’s a certain level at which a state pension became worthwhile (that is to say, at which taxing and funding such a thing had positive utility, in some kind of maximising-what-people-value sense), a level at which public education became worthwhile, a level at which public healthcare became worthwhile and so on (or rather, a monotonic relationship between how wealthy the nation is and how much public education it should be funding, and so on), and would expect this to be borne out by utility calculations.
The marginal value of wealth increases is much higher for poor countries, whereas the cost and utility of reducing inequality is reasonably constant.
So, from a viewpoint of, say, a couple of hundred years from now, would you say the current Western societies are “rich”? We would probably look as poor to them as pre-industrial Europe looks to us now.
Given the whole arc of human history, absolute measures of wealth look highly suspect to me.
Can you give a worked example of such a utility calculation?
Why is that so? The marginal value of wealth increases and the marginal value of reducing poverty should be similar because these effects are similar.
Yes—and we will probably look as right-wing/unsocialist to them as pre-industrial Europe looks to us now.
No. I don’t have the skills to do an explicit calculation, I only have a qualitative impression.
“reducing poverty” is conflating two things, because general wealth increase also reduces poverty; I’m thinking of “reducing inequality” as the zero- or even negative-sum component of reducing poverty. So for a poorer country the gain to the poor from reducing inequality is larger, but so is the cost to the (relative) rich; the overall effect wouldn’t scale the same way as increasing general wealth does as far as I can see.
LOL. Are you quite sure about that? You seem to be remarkably certain that Cthulhu always swims left :-D
Ah. So if you just hang the top 1% from the lamp posts and throw all their wealth into the sea, that would be a good thing? It would certainly reduce inequality and you seem to be fine with negative-sum approaches to the issue.
Certain no, but I think the trend is real.
If you’re attempting to reduce poverty in a way that’s not increasing overall wealth, then it’s zero- or negative-sum in wealth terms by definition (e.g. redistributive taxation would be zero-sum except for the overhead, so it’s negative-sum). I’m saying that a) some negative-wealth-sum actions (such as redistributive taxation) are positive utility in some circumstances b) an intervention that destroys X amount of wealth (or even X% of wealth) and produces Y amount of utility will be worthwhile in countries that are richer than some threshold and not worthwhile in countries that are poorer than that threshold, because the marginal utility of wealth decreases as you get richer.
(and c) these are the main kind of policies where there is left-right disagreement; everyone supports policies that increase wealth and don’t increase inequality or have other negative effects).
Of course, all this depends on how do you understand and calculate utility. Your statements are true for certain values of “utility” and not true for other values.
That’s actually not true. You are assuming that wealth and inequality are all that people are interested in. Let me suggest to you another value: power. For example, going a bit off the left-right axis we can find statists—people who really like government power and think that the more the better. They don’t necessarily care much about wealth (or about inequality either) -- what they care about is the power of central authority and that’s the yardstick they’ll be using to support (or not) certain policies.
Almost everyone values lower crime, lower stress, etc. These are cooperated with higher equality.
And who will admit to being a power loving statist?
A lot of people as long as we call it “the power to right wrongs, solve problems, and lead to prosperity”.
IOW , they don’t admit to it, where “admit” means “admit”, and instead require you to divine their true meaning.
PS are you aware that you admit to being a selfish money grabber every time you say you are a freedom lover who just wants the state to stay out of people’s lives? :-)
The grandparent sounds to me like it assumes the thrive/survive model of ideology, which I’ve got to admit I don’t find entirely convincing.
That model is descriptive, it says, quoting Yvain, (emphasis mine) “My hypothesis is that rightism is what happens when...”
On the other hand, here we are talking about normative, prescriptive policies.