Thread: Why do only fools and horses work?

Originally Posted by Bain

Because there is less distribution of the wealth, through laws/taxes.....?

The standard argument would focus on the welfare state and the associated extent of redistribution. However, we have to be careful. On one side we could refer to how redistribution has subsequent positive spillover (e.g. reducing inequality of opportunity such that genuine choice is created). On the other we could refer to how redistribution could impinge on work incentives. A common stance is that poverty is a short term phenomenon and it will encourage one to get off on one's backside (such that the work ethic will subsequently lead to social mobility)

Originally Posted by Reiver

Still dodging! Perhaps you need more detail from the Esping-Andersen approach? Here's a snippet from a later article:

The Anglo-Saxon countries represent the ‘liberal’ regime, one that favors minimal public intervention under the assumption that the majority of citizens can obtain adequate welfare from the market. The role of government is, in part, to nurture rather than replace, market transactions and this explains why these countries favor subsidizing private welfare via tax deductions.

Again, its a simple question: "Why do we see greater income inequality?"

You finally showed a bit of what you want to talk about (the Esping-Andersen approach). I read a bit of it, and was wondering where the executive summary was.

You obviously have a point, but have no interest in getting to it (a lot in common with Esping-Andersen).

I check back in a couple of weeks to see if you ever got to it.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

I check back in a couple of weeks to see if you ever got to it.

Zero content again. Get back to me when you have the ability to answer the question: "Why do we see greater income inequality in Anglo-Saxon economy?"

Originally Posted by Reiver

Anglo-Saxon countries are characterised by severe wage inequality and high working poverty. Typically there will be commentary about the use of minimum wages and how such wage protectionism can reduce such problems. Whilst we cannot deny that Anglo-Saxon countries have had relatively low minimum wages, we also know that such protection doesn't provide a significant mechanism to reduce poverty. So the question remains...

What is behind the Anglo-Saxon inequalities and how can it be 'improved'?

She's called Mother Nature. Write her a letter if you don't like her handywork. It never ceases to amaze me how people can be firm believers in darwinian natural selection and then get all offended when they see it in action.

Nature is not equal. It's not designed to be equal. The natural state of life is struggle, not contentment. People get upset about this because they do not understand the significance of it. Struggle causes us to act. Action causes us to grow. When we grow, we become stronger. If nature designed everything equally, then we would have no incentive to grow. And thus we would atrophy. What is not growing is dying.

In short, inequalities exist because they are necessary. People who see them as some kind of great injustice do not understand the value of challenge. Challenge is the essence of life. Trying to "improve" the challenge system is like trying to spell words with an algebraic equation. You're wasting your time and no matter how hard you try, you will always fail the test because you are taking it wrong.

Originally Posted by Unifier

Nature is not equal.

I haven't referred to equality (even socialism doesn't deliver that). I've simply asked why anglo-saxon capitalism is associated with greater income inequality. I've only had one response that has attempted an explanation. A rather poor show!

Originally Posted by Reiver

Still dodging! We've got a rather large literature used to understand differences in how these capitalist nations behave. Now, don't be scared now, offer an explanation for the higher income inequality experienced in Anglo-Saxon capitalism

Not the sharpest crayon in the box. Why would I explain what doesnt exist. Neither does Anglo Saxon Capitalism beyond defining it as capitalism practiced in an english speaking country

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Why would I explain what doesnt exist. Neither does Anglo Saxon Capitalism beyond defining it as capitalism practiced in an english speaking country

Given the abundant literature on the topic (and the relatively severe inequalities in the UK and the US cannot be disputed, no matter the methodology adopted), you're merely in denial. Its a case of dissonance as you know you have no answer for the distributional differences

Originally Posted by Reiver

Zero content again. Get back to me when you have the ability to answer the question: "Why do we see greater income inequality in Anglo-Saxon economy?"

In the US, it can be attributed to a simple moral failure to bear true witness to our own laws. From a capital based market perspective, I do not find it incompatible with capitalism, for persons of wealth to simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities. In the US, our problem is in being able to "free ride" on any privileges and immunities already established by persons of wealth.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

In the US, it can be attributed to a simple moral failure.

No reference to morality or ethics is required. This is about the economics; the origins of the inequalities and the extent that they can be understood through supply-side heterogeneity

I would agree with you in a vacuum; but we have to deal with laws as a form of Socialism, not Capitalism.