Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Dee
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 years ago
in Making Stuff Up on Will Wilkinson
You know, there is a difference between estimation and making stuff up. Just like there is a difference between a guess and an educated guess.
Sometimes you can really tell that you aren't an economist.
Sometimes you can really tell that you aren't an economist.
3 years ago
in Deserving It on Will Wilkinson
Great TCS article. This is why I love arguments based on moral intuition.
"Clearly, everyone agrees with me, that their intuitional tells them X,Y,Z."
"No, No, No. Everyone's moral intuition tells them ABC!"
What a rock solid foundation. We all believe what Will believes because his intuition tells him so. Oh, and I love the last two paragraphs. We are responcible too! Why? Because Will says so, I guess. No No wait. Because Will thinks everyone agrees with him that we are responcible.
That sounds right.
"Clearly, everyone agrees with me, that their intuitional tells them X,Y,Z."
"No, No, No. Everyone's moral intuition tells them ABC!"
What a rock solid foundation. We all believe what Will believes because his intuition tells him so. Oh, and I love the last two paragraphs. We are responcible too! Why? Because Will says so, I guess. No No wait. Because Will thinks everyone agrees with him that we are responcible.
That sounds right.
3 years ago
in Class, Education, and Meaning Manufacture on Will Wilkinson
Wow. A parent that thinks he can "mold" his children better than even best teachers in the country. What a suprise.
3 years ago
in Egalitarianism, the Entry on Will Wilkinson
Evidently Not, the former being what is seen clearly and the latter being...not?
3 years ago
in Egalitarianism, the Entry on Will Wilkinson
Tex,
Wouldn't it be easier to say "locked nuns in churches and burned them to the ground" or "burned nuns alive"?
Your text is written, the former being what you wrote and the latter being in such a way as to make me confused.
--DW
Wouldn't it be easier to say "locked nuns in churches and burned them to the ground" or "burned nuns alive"?
Your text is written, the former being what you wrote and the latter being in such a way as to make me confused.
--DW
3 years ago
in More on Transparency & Generality on Will Wilkinson
Javier,
Are Americans really like the slaves in Freser's example though? The government doesn't demand that we work. In fact, if you earn no income or very little income, then you don't have to pay income taxes at all.
I hear these types of arguments a lot, but I don't really see the connection between Freser's slaves and myself.
Are Americans really like the slaves in Freser's example though? The government doesn't demand that we work. In fact, if you earn no income or very little income, then you don't have to pay income taxes at all.
I hear these types of arguments a lot, but I don't really see the connection between Freser's slaves and myself.
3 years ago
in Equality of Opportunity is the Central Principle of Distributive Justice on Will Wilkinson
***EDITED FOR CLARITY***
Liam,
Well, I think I understood that much. But the “public good” argument would only be adequate if you already believe that “we” have the moral authority to correct market failures and maximize “economic efficiency”. If that is the case, then there is no reason you shouldn’t (in principal) object to moving resources to equalize holdings.
For example, if Richard Layard's “relative income pollution” existed, then “we” might have a similar problem of failing to meet our goal of "economic efficiency". If this is the case, what is stopping us from imposing higher taxes on income(as Layard suggests)or even redistributing from rich to poor?
The only difference is that where you talk about positive externalities, Layard talks about negative externalities. Do you think both arguments have equal moral weight? Is you disagreement with Layard strictly empirical?
Liam,
Well, I think I understood that much. But the “public good” argument would only be adequate if you already believe that “we” have the moral authority to correct market failures and maximize “economic efficiency”. If that is the case, then there is no reason you shouldn’t (in principal) object to moving resources to equalize holdings.
For example, if Richard Layard's “relative income pollution” existed, then “we” might have a similar problem of failing to meet our goal of "economic efficiency". If this is the case, what is stopping us from imposing higher taxes on income(as Layard suggests)or even redistributing from rich to poor?
The only difference is that where you talk about positive externalities, Layard talks about negative externalities. Do you think both arguments have equal moral weight? Is you disagreement with Layard strictly empirical?
3 years ago
in Equality of Opportunity is the Central Principle of Distributive Justice on Will Wilkinson
Liam,
Well, I think I understood that much. But the "public good" argument would only be adequate if you already believe that "we" have the moral authority to correct market failures and maximize "economic efficiency".
If that is the case, then there is no reason you shouldn't (in principal) object to moving resources to equalize holdings. If "relative income pollution" existed, as economists like Richard Layard have argued, then "we" would be similarly justified in re-distributing resources to equalize holdings.
The only difference is where you talk about positive externalities, Layard talks about negative externalities. Do you think both arguments have equal moral weight? Is you disagreement with Layard strictly empirical?
Well, I think I understood that much. But the "public good" argument would only be adequate if you already believe that "we" have the moral authority to correct market failures and maximize "economic efficiency".
If that is the case, then there is no reason you shouldn't (in principal) object to moving resources to equalize holdings. If "relative income pollution" existed, as economists like Richard Layard have argued, then "we" would be similarly justified in re-distributing resources to equalize holdings.
The only difference is where you talk about positive externalities, Layard talks about negative externalities. Do you think both arguments have equal moral weight? Is you disagreement with Layard strictly empirical?
3 years ago
in Equality of Opportunity is the Central Principle of Distributive Justice on Will Wilkinson
Liam,
How would you answer Schmidtz closing question from the Cato discussion on inequality? Do "we" have the moral authority to coercively re-arrange resources to achieve the "just society" you outline?
How would you answer Schmidtz closing question from the Cato discussion on inequality? Do "we" have the moral authority to coercively re-arrange resources to achieve the "just society" you outline?
3 years ago
in Hello from Liam James on Will Wilkinson
Anticipating your post has shot my productivity all to heck.
Please post so I don't get fired.
Please post so I don't get fired.
