Correlation needn’t imply direct causation, obviously, but some of the patterns are striking, to say the least. Richard Wilkinson’s book ‘The Impact of Inequality’ is a good review of this literature from an epidemiological standpoint.

A reading of the history of economic thought indicates that the origins of economics seemed to root its concern in inequality.

When Axel Leijonhufvud traced the endevors of macroeconomists, his starting point was Irving Fisher and Knut Wicksell where Axel mentions that Fisher and Wicksell were both deeply concerned with distributive justice.

However, I don’t think this is the answer you were wanting. I think your real question is *should* economists be concerned about (income) inequality? For that, I think economists should read more moral philosophy and be required to read Lionel Robbin’s article on the fallacy of comparing utilities.

I think “enough” is somewhat relative, but mostly absolute.

Schmidtz is off on the corn metaphor. Most seed corn is hybridized which means it is a bad idea for Joe Rich to replant the corn he gets from his fields.

I am afraid I am too dense to recognize the distinction.

I don’t want to drag you into a debate about something you have probably discussed ad nauseum. So just direct me via email to one of your past posts where you lay out this idea in more detail.

Specifically – what do you mean by “enough” and is the conception of “enough” a pliable cultural concept or an absolute measure of what is neccessary for survival.

Thanks, Will.

No.

“What drives you to earn if not dissatisfaction with your current level of consumption relative to others’ you observe?”

Having goas that require money to achieve.

“Likewise, do you not pity the retarded or the hideous or the poor?”

Of course.

“As a sometimes economist, I am well aware of the positive sum nature of markets and even think that income equality is a neccessary feature of growing economies. And yet I am still bothered by the plight of the less fortunate.”

Being less fortunate than some: not a plight. Not having enough: plight.

So what?

Are you completely unwilling to acknowledge that the proximate wealth, attractiveness, ability of another person may influence your level of contentment?

What drives you to earn if not dissatisfaction with your current level of consumption relative to others’ you observe?

Likewise, do you not pity the retarded or the hideous or the poor?

I am with Dirk – must be something genetic.

It isn’t about justice or fairness except for those seeking justification for change. It is just unfortunate that certain people have to spend their limited time alive in the presence of joy that they cannot know due to circumstance outside their control.

As a sometimes economist, I am well aware of the positive sum nature of markets and even think that income equality is a neccessary feature of growing economies. And yet I am still bothered by the plight of the less fortunate.

I think some people just wrongly assume that wealth is a pie of fized size, and if some people have a bigger slice, then that’s just unfair. But if you understand that there’s no pie, and that economic activity is a positive sum and not a zero-sum game, inequality just stops bothering you. If somebody has a bigger share than me, chances are they have made me better off, not worse off.