<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: thoughts on Wilkinson&#8217;s views on income inequality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:49:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Drew</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16536</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16536</guid>
		<description>I was actually thinking more of the potential revolution in thought that the idea might bring if widely accepted than of concrete policy changes, which I agree would be at the margins at least initially, since we do already have social safety nets, etc. of various kinds and sizes.  But if the capital-holding class were truly to come to recognize that they owe a debt to society in benefitting from conditions that allow them to hold capital, and especially to the struggling classes by virtue of the fact that society grinds along on their not-well-compensated continued willingness to work for essentially as little as employers can figure out how to pay them, that could have a serious impact on prevalent social thought in the public at large.

I mean, imagine if CNBC devoted a half-hour every morning right around the morning bell to something called &quot;What We Owe to the Workers,&quot; or if the Wall Street Journal ran weekly editorials or op-eds laying down in black-and-white just exactly how dependent on social stability corporate profits are, and that among the necessary policies we need to enact to preserve that is to ensure that low- and middle-income workers and their families are insured against catastrophic injury and illness, and have access to affordable routine medical care.  It would be a very different world.

(Incidentally, I agree that there is a condescension in redistribution done via specially-purposed transfers.  That&#039;s part of the reason I don&#039;t much like vouchers as a general approach to safety nets, though they definitely have benefits of efficiency and accountability to the purpose for which the funds are appropriated.  But I think you&#039;re right to think that in a social debt conception, the condescension might be a more important consideration.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was actually thinking more of the potential revolution in thought that the idea might bring if widely accepted than of concrete policy changes, which I agree would be at the margins at least initially, since we do already have social safety nets, etc. of various kinds and sizes.  But if the capital-holding class were truly to come to recognize that they owe a debt to society in benefitting from conditions that allow them to hold capital, and especially to the struggling classes by virtue of the fact that society grinds along on their not-well-compensated continued willingness to work for essentially as little as employers can figure out how to pay them, that could have a serious impact on prevalent social thought in the public at large.</p>
<p>I mean, imagine if CNBC devoted a half-hour every morning right around the morning bell to something called &#8220;What We Owe to the Workers,&#8221; or if the Wall Street Journal ran weekly editorials or op-eds laying down in black-and-white just exactly how dependent on social stability corporate profits are, and that among the necessary policies we need to enact to preserve that is to ensure that low- and middle-income workers and their families are insured against catastrophic injury and illness, and have access to affordable routine medical care.  It would be a very different world.</p>
<p>(Incidentally, I agree that there is a condescension in redistribution done via specially-purposed transfers.  That&#8217;s part of the reason I don&#8217;t much like vouchers as a general approach to safety nets, though they definitely have benefits of efficiency and accountability to the purpose for which the funds are appropriated.  But I think you&#8217;re right to think that in a social debt conception, the condescension might be a more important consideration.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Drew</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16531</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16531</guid>
		<description>Certainly the idea that the haves owe part of their ability to have to society at large for maintaining conditions in which it is possible to have and retain wealth and property is not a new one.  But I don&#039;t know that I have heard the formulation of redistribution/social safety nets as repayment of that debt before.  It&#039;s an interesting one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certainly the idea that the haves owe part of their ability to have to society at large for maintaining conditions in which it is possible to have and retain wealth and property is not a new one.  But I don&#8217;t know that I have heard the formulation of redistribution/social safety nets as repayment of that debt before.  It&#8217;s an interesting one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Drew</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16526</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16526</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t personally think I have the perfect level of social safety net in mind, but moreover the point is, even if I thought I did it wouldn&#039;t matter, because it is among the most eminently political questions in public discourse, which is to say it can only be answered correctly via broad engagement in debate by society at large.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t personally think I have the perfect level of social safety net in mind, but moreover the point is, even if I thought I did it wouldn&#8217;t matter, because it is among the most eminently political questions in public discourse, which is to say it can only be answered correctly via broad engagement in debate by society at large.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16486</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:27:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16486</guid>
		<description>Eh, I don&#039;t think that I can really do &quot;brief&quot; successfully. We seem to be talking past each other &amp; that&#039;s largely my fault.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eh, I don&#8217;t think that I can really do &#8220;brief&#8221; successfully. We seem to be talking past each other &amp; that&#8217;s largely my fault.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: greginak</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16476</link>
		<dc:creator>greginak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:03:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16476</guid>
		<description>Where we stand in relation to others can give us an idea of what is possible and what is reasonable. There doesn’t seem to be any good reason why the infant mortality rate of blacks is on a third world level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where we stand in relation to others can give us an idea of what is possible and what is reasonable. There doesn’t seem to be any good reason why the infant mortality rate of blacks is on a third world level.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mike farmer</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16473</link>
		<dc:creator>mike farmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:38:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16473</guid>
		<description>So, you don&#039;t know either, heh?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, you don&#8217;t know either, heh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Thompson</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16472</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:13:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16472</guid>
		<description>And yeah, I recognize the radicalism in this concept.  The weird thing about it, though, is that its practical effects on existing welfare policies would be quite incremental: since the amount of transfer from poor to rich, plus interest, is inherently impossible to calculate, it has to be left up to democratic norms.  That said, I think it would have to argue for more direct redistribution rather than redistribution for specific purposes since such redistributions come with strings attached and I don&#039;t see a moral justification for attaching strings to how a person may spend money that they were owed in the first place.  But, that may be my libertarian biases infecting things a little too much - I can see how one could argue that democratic norms are also appropriate measures for figuring out the exact structure of how those repayments are to be made since the original &quot;loan&quot; amount is unquantifiable to begin with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And yeah, I recognize the radicalism in this concept.  The weird thing about it, though, is that its practical effects on existing welfare policies would be quite incremental: since the amount of transfer from poor to rich, plus interest, is inherently impossible to calculate, it has to be left up to democratic norms.  That said, I think it would have to argue for more direct redistribution rather than redistribution for specific purposes since such redistributions come with strings attached and I don&#8217;t see a moral justification for attaching strings to how a person may spend money that they were owed in the first place.  But, that may be my libertarian biases infecting things a little too much &#8211; I can see how one could argue that democratic norms are also appropriate measures for figuring out the exact structure of how those repayments are to be made since the original &#8220;loan&#8221; amount is unquantifiable to begin with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Thompson</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16469</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Thompson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:59:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16469</guid>
		<description>As far as I know, the precise formulation is my own, but it draws heavily on some of Kevin Carson&#039;s work (I&#039;m not at all sure if Kevin himself would agree with it, though).  

That said, I entirely expect to find out that someone far more accomplished than I came up with a similar or identical formulation long ago.  Something I&#039;ve learned over the last two years is that no matter how original an idea you think you have, there&#039;s always someone more famous than you who&#039;s thought of it before.  A lot of times, it&#039;s even an idea that has been around in some form or another for literally milennia.  

I&#039;m trying to figure out a way of expanding upon it, but there&#039;s several different directions I could take it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as I know, the precise formulation is my own, but it draws heavily on some of Kevin Carson&#8217;s work (I&#8217;m not at all sure if Kevin himself would agree with it, though).  </p>
<p>That said, I entirely expect to find out that someone far more accomplished than I came up with a similar or identical formulation long ago.  Something I&#8217;ve learned over the last two years is that no matter how original an idea you think you have, there&#8217;s always someone more famous than you who&#8217;s thought of it before.  A lot of times, it&#8217;s even an idea that has been around in some form or another for literally milennia.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m trying to figure out a way of expanding upon it, but there&#8217;s several different directions I could take it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Drew</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16466</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16466</guid>
		<description>(It starkly subverts/inverts the usual assumptions about who does the lending and who the borrowing in society.  I&#039;m sure you recognize the radical potential of such an idea...)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(It starkly subverts/inverts the usual assumptions about who does the lending and who the borrowing in society.  I&#8217;m sure you recognize the radical potential of such an idea&#8230;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Drew</title>
		<link>http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-wilkinsons-views-on-income-inequality/#comment-16465</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:34:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/?p=7163#comment-16465</guid>
		<description>For what it&#039;s worth, Mark, I think that is a supremely intriguing formula.  Is it original from you?  Regardless of that, I&#039;d greatly welcome more on it from you if you&#039;re considering it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For what it&#8217;s worth, Mark, I think that is a supremely intriguing formula.  Is it original from you?  Regardless of that, I&#8217;d greatly welcome more on it from you if you&#8217;re considering it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
