by Summary:
Investigation referenced by libertarians at Cato so tread carefully (ie not an endorsement). They put the focus on envy (takes only 2) rather than jealousy (takes 3 minimum) as operative in the "rich vs. poor" thing. The more surprising findings involved envy and fairness. Envy, directed toward those better off than you, predicted support for redistribution. "When a rival outperforms you in some activity, your relative standing decreases," said Sznycer. "People sometimes act to chip away at their rivals' advantages, even when that also harms third parties or even sometimes themselves." Envy and the spite it generates are socially destructive, he noted, but "they can make sense in the context of an ancestral world that included competitive zero-sum games." When given two
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Investigation referenced by libertarians at Cato so tread carefully (ie not an endorsement). They put the focus on envy (takes only 2) rather than jealousy (takes 3 minimum) as operative in the "rich vs. poor" thing. The more surprising findings involved envy and fairness. Envy, directed toward those better off than you, predicted support for redistribution. "When a rival outperforms you in some activity, your relative standing decreases," said Sznycer. "People sometimes act to chip away at their rivals' advantages, even when that also harms third parties or even sometimes themselves." Envy and the spite it generates are socially destructive, he noted, but "they can make sense in the context of an ancestral world that included competitive zero-sum games." When given two
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Andreas Cervenka och den svenska bostadsbubblan
Mike Norman writes Trade deficit
Merijn T. Knibbe writes Christmas thoughts about counting the dead in zones of armed conflict.
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Debunking the balanced budget superstition
Investigation referenced by libertarians at Cato so tread carefully (ie not an endorsement). They put the focus on envy (takes only 2) rather than jealousy (takes 3 minimum) as operative in the "rich vs. poor" thing.
The more surprising findings involved envy and fairness.
Envy, directed toward those better off than you, predicted support for redistribution.
"When a rival outperforms you in some activity, your relative standing decreases," said Sznycer. "People sometimes act to chip away at their rivals' advantages, even when that also harms third parties or even sometimes themselves."
Envy and the spite it generates are socially destructive, he noted, but "they can make sense in the context of an ancestral world that included competitive zero-sum games."
When given two hypothetical policies—lower taxes on the rich resulting in more revenue to help the poor versus higher taxes on the rich but less money for the poor—one in six people preferred the second, more spiteful option. This willingness to hurt the poor to pull down the rich was predicted only by the individual's proneness to envy.
So they are implying that the whole "Bernie!" thing, probably 1 out of 6 are Bernie people (i.e. the tax the rich / screw the poor people) is driven by envy and thus the Bernie people are using a 2 agent model or view of the world; when it is certainly more than simply a 2 agent system we have; i.e. its possible jealousy could be operating and confused with envy here by these libertarians.
1 in 6 people would raise taxes on the rich even if they knew it would hurt the poor to do so. Why? Envy. https://t.co/yCnl1Ji8YJ pic.twitter.com/wX61daRQa6— Cato Institute (@CatoInstitute) November 9, 2017