Efficiency is more important, you can't distribute what you don't have after-all, but that doesn't mean we should ignore maldistribution, a form of inefficiency if we take externalities into consideration.
there is a lot of good research on the linkage between income distribution and growth that shows that higher inequality leads to lower growth, so the argument below is flawed. This is exactly what Juliet Schor menas by ex ante and ex post distribution.
As long as we redistribute ex-post we don't need to care about it - that would stop a top 1% developing. We need to take power for the people I'm unsure how to do it but Scandinavian nations seem capable. Ecology? Don't make us look like hippies :( Even though uncontrolled growth is cancer we can't fight that AND distribution at once.
Efficiency is more important, you can't distribute what you don't have after-all, but that doesn't mean we should ignore maldistribution, a form of inefficiency if we take externalities into consideration.
Thanks for your brilliant comment. I bet there are many more intelligent insights where that came from.
I love the idea of the occupy movement in schools, thanks for teaching it to the 99% :)
I was wondering if anyone has any idea about the Universal Income tied into the GNI to provide with a $34 to $50 K a year income?
there is a lot of good research on the linkage between income distribution and growth that shows that higher inequality leads to lower growth, so the argument below is flawed. This is exactly what Juliet Schor menas by ex ante and ex post distribution.
As long as we redistribute ex-post we don't need to care about it - that would stop a top 1% developing. We need to take power for the people I'm unsure how to do it but Scandinavian nations seem capable.
Ecology? Don't make us look like hippies :( Even though uncontrolled growth is cancer we can't fight that AND distribution at once.
she lie