by Summary:
Everyone is better off in absolute terms (growth, trickle down) but distribution is becoming more asymmetrical, with growth income and wealth occurring largely at the top tier AKA "the 1%." Marginalism and "just deserts" don't explain it. The issue is not only asymmetrical income and wealth but also asymmetrical power rather than "merit." Taking capitalism is the economic system that favors capital (ownership and control) over labor (workers, i.e., people) and land (the environment), the balance of power is skewed heavily toward ownership and control. The question is why, and the answer is institutional arrangements that are not only economic but also social (class structure, privilege) and political (distribution of power). This leads to many further questions that conventional
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: inequality
This could be interesting, too:
Everyone is better off in absolute terms (growth, trickle down) but distribution is becoming more asymmetrical, with growth income and wealth occurring largely at the top tier AKA "the 1%." Marginalism and "just deserts" don't explain it. The issue is not only asymmetrical income and wealth but also asymmetrical power rather than "merit." Taking capitalism is the economic system that favors capital (ownership and control) over labor (workers, i.e., people) and land (the environment), the balance of power is skewed heavily toward ownership and control. The question is why, and the answer is institutional arrangements that are not only economic but also social (class structure, privilege) and political (distribution of power). This leads to many further questions that conventional
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: inequality
This could be interesting, too:
Nick Falvo writes Homelessness among racialized persons
Nick Falvo writes Housing and homelessness study tour of London (UK)
Nick Falvo writes Homelessness among Indigenous peoples
Nick Falvo writes Homelessness in New York City
Marginalism and "just deserts" don't explain it. The issue is not only asymmetrical income and wealth but also asymmetrical power rather than "merit."
Taking capitalism is the economic system that favors capital (ownership and control) over labor (workers, i.e., people) and land (the environment), the balance of power is skewed heavily toward ownership and control. The question is why, and the answer is institutional arrangements that are not only economic but also social (class structure, privilege) and political (distribution of power).
This leads to many further questions that conventional economics avoids owing to methodological assumptions that are normative choices. A rethink in terms of the big picture is needed?
Occasional Links & Commentary
Measure for measure*
David F. Ruccio | Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame