![]() Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Alberto Mingardi Scott Sumner Subscribe by email
More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
TRACKBACKS (12 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/85
The author at Rishon Rishon in a related article titled Who is rich? writes:
The author at Optimization Prime in a related article titled A One Sided Approach to History writes:
The author at Advisory Opinion in a related article titled You're Rich writes:
The author at The Big Picture in a related article titled What is wealth? writes:
COMMENTS (5 to date)
Lawrance George Lux writes:
Arnold, I have always believed every Economy must pass through these shelfs, and personal beliefs and/or Government policies has little to do with the final outcome. lgl Posted May 20, 2004 11:20 AM
David Benoff writes:
Economic sociologists have convincingly shown that once a minimum level of prosperity is reached (i.e. nutritious diet, basic housing, access to education and health care), subsequent increases in material wealth contribute very little to people's self-reported happiness. Of course "standard of living" is an ideologically freighted term in that it implies that quality of life can be assessed in terms of material possessions. In affluent societies like the U.S., income is largely a "positional good". A high income is valued less for what it buys, than for the fact that it makes you "better". Note also Americans' preference for expenditures that have a high signaling quotient -- overconsumption of goods like autos and housing, underconsumption of leisure and travel. Posted May 20, 2004 1:04 PM
David Thomson writes:
“John Rawls made a splash by arguing that we should imagine ourselves being born as the worst-off person in society.” The well meaning John Rawls did enormous damage. Determinism underpinned his essential philosophy. Rawls had a difficult time dealing with the harsh fact that sometimes a person is responsible for their own troubles. We are often not merely victims of circumstances. Sometimes an individual is unexpectedly run over by a vehicle that jumped the sidewalk. Alas, there are also times when people get drunk and walk in front of a fast moving truck. Should we treat the virtuous and the non-virtuous alike? The late Harvard professor had no real answer for this dilemma. Posted May 21, 2004 7:16 AM
Mcwop writes:
First problem is in using income to define who is rich. Take the following three scenarios: Married Couple 1 Married Couple 2 Married Couple 3 No matter how you slice these income situations are very different. For exapmle, Married couple 3 have a high (Kerry definition of rich) income, but the least amount of free time. Let's look at one more example of a small business owner who makes widgets. He is self employed and for the past 20 years has earned $50,000 per year. In year 21 the he has a great year from a big widget purchaser, and earns $300,000. After that year he goes back to earning $50,000 per year. Is this guy really rich? Posted May 21, 2004 7:57 AM
Barry Ritholtz writes:
This disingenous argument receives a full fisking at the link above. I must say, when I first read the excerpt, I initially suspected these authors had suffered some kind of a blunt force trauma to the head . . . In their dementia, their lack of mental accuity led to make rather pedantic and foolish arguments. Then I went to read the full piece -- it is at TechCentral Station, where the full glory of the author's intents are revealed: Its a diatribe against presidential candidate John Kerry's plan to rollback the tax cuts for the top 1%. So in addition to being a poor piece of tortured logistical reasoning, it is also a bunch of partisan hackery. Arnold Kling: you can do much better than citing intellectual deitrus such as this . . . Posted May 22, 2004 7:30 AM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |