Anyone who has read the Declaration of Independence has at least an inkling that the topic of equality isn’t a twenty-first century concern. The “all men are created equal” of that document reveals that the topic was on the minds of the American Founding Fathers. Of course, the government they engendered had to undergo revisions ensuring further “equality” as elaborated in the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments. That people are still concerned about equality is evidence that the term’s definition is incomplete and that the topic still weighs heavily on the minds of individuals and groups.
Some people, particularly those who lean toward socialism, believe that equality in its several meanings can be forced on a society by a government’s redistributing wealth, jobs, and opportunities, all achieved through agency programs and funding. But can governments impose equality, especially economic equality? Think of those who ran the Soviet Union, government officials who had second homes while the Soviet citizens lived in government-designed housing.
Addressing “inequality” in their recent paper on what they term “one of the most serious challenges for the global economy,” authors Atanu Ghoshray, Mercedes Monfort, and Javier Ordóñez conclude with regard to past efforts “that inequality is persistent and government redistribution policies through taxes and transfers did not significantly reduce inequality persistence.”* Their finding doesn't appear to be Earth-shattering news. But in what sense do they mean “most serious challenges”? Should we infer that they assume there is a way to eliminate persistent inequality? Are they thinking that such challenges can be met?
Look, you and I both know that nothing save the x and y on either side of an equal sign or the elements in a balanced equation can be equal. And every attempt by social reformers to enforce rules and laws designed to eliminate inequality has failed, fails now, and will fail. Equilibrium is rare at best and always temporary. According to the researchers, “inequality is persistent for a set of 60 countries over the period 1984 to 2013.”
And yet, there will be those who will this year and next, and the years to come, insist that they have the key to equality, the method to undo what no one has yet undone. And there will be those who, like the authors of the study, will suggest “that persistence in income inequality is of structural rather than cyclical nature, and structural reforms are needed to cope with the undesired effects of increasing and persistent inequality,” in spite of the very data on the economies of 60 countries they use to say inequality is persistent. Are the “structural reforms” the “serious challenges” the authors mention? And if they are, how will someone or some group make “structural reforms”? What will those “reforms” look like? Who will be the reformers? And what guarantee could they offer for the persistence of their form of “equality”?
It lies in the nature of some to wish for a world that doesn’t exist, has never existed, and will never exist. Some will say, again as we know, that the reason for past failures to eradicate economic inequality lay in the corruption of individuals. “If only we had truly ethical economic leaders…” the argument commences. The ethical ones will guarantee economic equality. So, then, should we buy into the hype about how the current bevy of American “democratic socialists” will impose economic equality? Will the wealthy presidential candidates advocating socialist policies give up their extra cars and homes? If they keep one extra TV set, car, or home, or have rooms they don’t use in their multiple houses, aren’t they putting the economy in disequilibrium? And am I incorrect in thinking that members of Congress exempted themselves from participating in the "equality" of Obamacare? Why would they not have wanted to join a program they said would ensure equality?
None of this is a new argument against socialism, or so I thought until I read surveys that indicate many young Americans favor socialism and, therefore, must never have studied its actual effects on past and present societies and individuals. I suppose no one can convince the uninformed until after the effects of imposed “equality” take hold of their lives, holding individual economic circumstances in check to eliminate an imbalance of wealth or ownership. By the time millennials who favor socialism at this time become its victims, those who sold them the Brooklyn Bridge Economy will have passed on, ironically leaving a world far more unequal than it is today—or one so equal that no one will be able to fulfill any personal desire.
*1 Jan 2020. Re-examining inequality persistence. Economics (online). No. 2020-1. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/2020-1
PDF downloadable.
Some people, particularly those who lean toward socialism, believe that equality in its several meanings can be forced on a society by a government’s redistributing wealth, jobs, and opportunities, all achieved through agency programs and funding. But can governments impose equality, especially economic equality? Think of those who ran the Soviet Union, government officials who had second homes while the Soviet citizens lived in government-designed housing.
Addressing “inequality” in their recent paper on what they term “one of the most serious challenges for the global economy,” authors Atanu Ghoshray, Mercedes Monfort, and Javier Ordóñez conclude with regard to past efforts “that inequality is persistent and government redistribution policies through taxes and transfers did not significantly reduce inequality persistence.”* Their finding doesn't appear to be Earth-shattering news. But in what sense do they mean “most serious challenges”? Should we infer that they assume there is a way to eliminate persistent inequality? Are they thinking that such challenges can be met?
Look, you and I both know that nothing save the x and y on either side of an equal sign or the elements in a balanced equation can be equal. And every attempt by social reformers to enforce rules and laws designed to eliminate inequality has failed, fails now, and will fail. Equilibrium is rare at best and always temporary. According to the researchers, “inequality is persistent for a set of 60 countries over the period 1984 to 2013.”
And yet, there will be those who will this year and next, and the years to come, insist that they have the key to equality, the method to undo what no one has yet undone. And there will be those who, like the authors of the study, will suggest “that persistence in income inequality is of structural rather than cyclical nature, and structural reforms are needed to cope with the undesired effects of increasing and persistent inequality,” in spite of the very data on the economies of 60 countries they use to say inequality is persistent. Are the “structural reforms” the “serious challenges” the authors mention? And if they are, how will someone or some group make “structural reforms”? What will those “reforms” look like? Who will be the reformers? And what guarantee could they offer for the persistence of their form of “equality”?
It lies in the nature of some to wish for a world that doesn’t exist, has never existed, and will never exist. Some will say, again as we know, that the reason for past failures to eradicate economic inequality lay in the corruption of individuals. “If only we had truly ethical economic leaders…” the argument commences. The ethical ones will guarantee economic equality. So, then, should we buy into the hype about how the current bevy of American “democratic socialists” will impose economic equality? Will the wealthy presidential candidates advocating socialist policies give up their extra cars and homes? If they keep one extra TV set, car, or home, or have rooms they don’t use in their multiple houses, aren’t they putting the economy in disequilibrium? And am I incorrect in thinking that members of Congress exempted themselves from participating in the "equality" of Obamacare? Why would they not have wanted to join a program they said would ensure equality?
None of this is a new argument against socialism, or so I thought until I read surveys that indicate many young Americans favor socialism and, therefore, must never have studied its actual effects on past and present societies and individuals. I suppose no one can convince the uninformed until after the effects of imposed “equality” take hold of their lives, holding individual economic circumstances in check to eliminate an imbalance of wealth or ownership. By the time millennials who favor socialism at this time become its victims, those who sold them the Brooklyn Bridge Economy will have passed on, ironically leaving a world far more unequal than it is today—or one so equal that no one will be able to fulfill any personal desire.
*1 Jan 2020. Re-examining inequality persistence. Economics (online). No. 2020-1. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/2020-1
PDF downloadable.
RSS Feed