Milton Friedman believed that his form of economic freedom would lead to greater prosperity, and if it lead to greater inequality he would regard that as acceptable. Watch this fascinating Ted talk on the effects of inequality. Not only is it bad for the poor in the unequal societies. Even the rich within those unequal societies suffer. Rich in unequal societies suffer more as measured by these social indicators than less rich people in more equal societies.
8 comments:
Jon you owe me the 16 minutes of my life I just wasted watching that mess.
Hey, if you learned something you didn't waste your time. You going to tell me you didn't learn something with that? I did.
Actually I did learn a couple things, but I still want my 16 minutes back (lol).
I would have thought that the gap in years lived for the Rich versus the poor would have been far greater than just 6.5 years.
I also learned that Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is this guys playbook which is really the playbook of the Left in general.
Facts are facts. Doesn't matter that this guy likes Alinsky. The data shows that inequality hurts even the rich. That's worth knowing.
I did not make that connection at all to be honest.
I think it was infant mortality that he was talking about at the time. The super rich in England are richer than the super rich in Sweden. So while the super rich in England have lower infant mortality than the poor in England they have higher infant mortality than the rich in Sweden, and the rich in Sweden are not as rich as the rich in England.
I hope that's clear.
Wilkinson claims to have amassed abundant data that show that by every statistical index, social well-being is inversely correlated with inequality, whether the comparison is made among industrial nations or among states and provinces of North America. I can understand that some people might wish that this were not the case; and if somebody has a statistical counter-argument, let's hear it. But to dismiss Wilkinson's sociological argument by claiming that he is following the "playbook" of some "Rules for Radicals" is a blatant exercise in irrelevance.
A bit of back story on the source of that rubbish about Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" posted by Chad in comments above, from "New Hampshire Haunted by Alinsky Ghost - BOO!" by Karoli at Crooks and Liars, 31 October 2011:
"Yes, Alice, you've fallen down the conservative rabbit hole into that other place where they do what they say others do. That would be the conservative rabbit hole with the unending assault on anyone who disagrees, the turning-around of a substantive question by conjuring forth Saul Alinsky from the corridors of the dead to distract, deflect, and otherwise ignore a reasonable question by a soon-to-be voting citizen of this great country." Or, as the case may be, a substantive and well-supported argument.
Post a Comment