cardy uggs Special sale,Order now,Save 38% immediately

cardy uggs boots This season hit the store,Only $99

Would you like a pair of classic short ugg home,make this winter warm,let you feet keep comfort every day.

Newest classic short uggs is in stock now,Save more off,Win lucky coupon code.

women's bailey button UGG this season hottest Short style UGG Boots,you should never miss it.

Bailey Button UGGs keep your feet amazing comfort,Special sale time is limited this week,Order now

UGGs Bailey Button Boots can't find?You can go our shop,Will save more 25%.

UGG Bailey Button Sale Come in stock,win more discount now.

Chestnut Bailey Button Boot this season hottest Ugg boots,every one is talk about that,Take them home now.

bailey button leopard Ugg boots let the fashion on your feet now,A pair of this will give you all.

<H3>Leopard Uggs New version of Ugg Bailey Button hit the store</H3>
<H3>UGG Australia Highkoo 2009-2010 this winter a new rasie trendy along with bailey button button.</H3>
<H3>UGG Women's Highkoo Will the best gift for christmas,for your girlfriend,your family member</H3>
<H3 jQuery1250860456437=”26″>UGG Grey Women's Highkoo keep rising,don's miss this opportunity to get them home with cheapest price you never imagin.</H3>
<H3> </H3>
<H3> </H3>

cardy uggs Special sale,Order now,Save 38% immediately

cardy uggs boots This season hit the store,Only $99

Would you like a pair of classic short ugg home,make this winter warm,let you feet keep comfort every day.

Newest classic short uggs is in stock now,Save more off,Win lucky coupon code.

women's bailey button UGG this season hottest Short style UGG Boots,you should never miss it.

Bailey Button UGGs keep your feet amazing comfort,Special sale time is limited this week,Order now

UGGs Bailey Button Boots can't find?You can go our shop,Will save more 25%.

UGG Bailey Button Sale Come in stock,win more discount now.

Chestnut Bailey Button Boot this season hottest Ugg boots,every one is talk about that,Take them home now.

bailey button leopard Ugg boots let the fashion on your feet now,A pair of this will give you all.

<H3>Leopard Uggs New version of Ugg Bailey Button hit the store</H3>
<H3>UGG Australia Highkoo 2009-2010 this winter a new rasie trendy along with bailey button button.</H3>
<H3>UGG Women's Highkoo Will the best gift for christmas,for your girlfriend,your family member</H3>
<H3 jQuery1250860456437=”26″>UGG Grey Women's Highkoo keep rising,don's miss this opportunity to get them home with cheapest price you never imagin.</H3>
<H3> </H3>
<H3> </H3>

cardy uggs Special sale,Order now,Save 38% immediately

cardy uggs boots This season hit the store,Only $99

Would you like a pair of classic short ugg home,make this winter warm,let you feet keep comfort every day.

Newest classic short uggs is in stock now,Save more off,Win lucky coupon code.

women's bailey button UGG this season hottest Short style UGG Boots,you should never miss it.

Bailey Button UGGs keep your feet amazing comfort,Special sale time is limited this week,Order now

UGGs Bailey Button Boots can't find?You can go our shop,Will save more 25%.

UGG Bailey Button Sale Come in stock,win more discount now.

Chestnut Bailey Button Boot this season hottest Ugg boots,every one is talk about that,Take them home now.

bailey button leopard Ugg boots let the fashion on your feet now,A pair of this will give you all.

<H3>Leopard Uggs New version of Ugg Bailey Button hit the store</H3>
<H3>UGG Australia Highkoo 2009-2010 this winter a new rasie trendy along with bailey button button.</H3>
<H3>UGG Women's Highkoo Will the best gift for christmas,for your girlfriend,your family member</H3>
<H3 jQuery1250860456437=”26″>UGG Grey Women's Highkoo keep rising,don's miss this opportunity to get them home with cheapest price you never imagin.</H3>
<H3> </H3>
<H3> </H3>

“a confusion of wages with wealth”

I have to plead guilty to that one. I do believe that wages are a component of wealth.

“a charmingly naive belief that political realities/social norms are “distortions” rather than essential components of market prices”

Again, if I understand you correctly, I must plead guilty. How could “political realities” and “social norms” at odds with market valuations and prices not distort them?

“the lack of a logical/plausible theory of market behavior”

How about this? The market, always tending toward equilibrium, always tends toward the optimum state of affairs, and, any interference with it, tending toward disequilibrium, tends toward a less than optimum state of affairs.

How about this? Interference with the market is always counterproductive, bringing about the exact opposite state of affairs aimed at.

How about this? For every action against the market, there is an opposite and more than equal reaction.

How about this? Taking from the rich to give to the poor can not reduce but only increase income inequality and “social injustice.”

My theory is that the market always tends toward equilibrium, that equilibrium is the

“the absence of any empirical evidence that redistribution always exacerbates inequality the way you claim it does”

Again, I plead guilty, inasmuch as I am not an historian but an economist.

Jeers!

Knock yourself out. Don't let any of the following stop you:

-a confusion of wages with wealth;
-a charmingly naive belief that political realities/social norms are “distortions” rather than essential components of market prices;
-the lack of a logical/plausible theory of market behavior;
-the absence of any empirical evidence that redistribution always exacerbates inequality the way you claim it does.

To the extent that you're willing to let these considerations influence your position, I'm willing to keep working together on this.

Cheers!

My considered opinion, in light of all this, is the previous, not the later one.

Thank you for your help.

Let's keep working together.

.

To restore the manpower allocations it had preferred, the market must bid the net wages of the formerly rich back up and of the formerly poor back down.

dg lesvic today:

If you rob Peter to pay Paul, the market will be forced to cater more to Paul and less to Peter's demands than previously.

My job here is done.

Good idea. I'll ry that.

Sorry. It doesn't work.

Why don't you take proverbial your fingers out of your metaphorical ears, then, dg?

Of course you “can't understand” what DMonteith is saying, dg. Although it is perfectly lucid, it doesn't fit into your prefabricated categorical boxes. Instead of translating what DMonteith said into the opposite of what he said (e.g. your “market forces are uncontrollable but are controllable”) why don't you try emptying your mind of preconceptions, objections, rebuttals, come-backs and all the other obstacles to listening and… simply… listen. Even entertain — for the sake of argument — the idea that something you KNOW must be wrong might be right.

You wrote,

“The whole problem with your view has to do with your confusion of market processes with political processes.”

What confusion? There are market wages and political distortions of them. Period.

You wrote,

“The manpower (or any other resource) allocations that a given market “prefers” depend on the existing patterns of distribution that the market operates within.”

The manpower allocations that a market prefers depend upon its preferences.

You wrote,

“If you change the distribution patterns, the market's “preferred” allocation changes too.”

If you rob Peter to pay Paul, the market will be forced to cater more to Paul and less to Peter's demands than previously.

You wrote,

“If under one pattern of distribution there is a large allocation of resources devoted to the gold plating and diamond encrusting of urinals there is no “market preference” for this state of affairs.”

I cannot translate that into anything that makes sense to me. It seems to me that you're saying that if there is one state of affairs, there will not be that state of affairs.

You wrote,

“A change in the pattern of distribution might lead the market to re-allocate urinal enhancement resources to flood prevention instead.”

Robbing Peter to pay Paul may result in different demands upon the market.

You wrote,

“There is no 'preference' inherent *in the market itself' for an allocation oriented towards luxury toilets just as there was no 'market preference' pushing allocation away from that before the change in distribution.”

There is no inherent market preference for one thing over another.

You wrote,

“Distribution is a reflection of the political fight over the returns to various factors of production (not just wages, which you seem fixated on in your original comment), not a reflection of market “preferences”.

I understand and agree with that just as it stands.

You wrote,

“The shape of any particular distribution will largely influence the shape of the allocations observed in the market…”

Again, I agree.

You went on,

“but, again, markets, since they don't have minds, are indifferent to those particulars. Humans, on the other hand, are very concerned about distribution and the allocations that flow from it and spend a huge amount of time and energy trying to influence it.”

If markets are not comprised of human beings, what are they comprised of, apes?

You wrote,

“The appeal of just so stories about markets that explain huge disparities in circumstance as natural outcomes of impersonal and uncontrollable forces is undeniable, but it turns out that these outcomes are actually amenable to alteration by human decisions that have moral significance. Sorry about that.”

Market forces are uncontrollable but are controllable. Sorry about that.

You should be.

The manpower (or any other resource) allocations that a given market “prefers” depend on the existing patterns of distribution that the market operates within. If you change the distribution patterns, the market's “preferred” allocation changes too. If under one pattern of distribution there is a large allocation of resources devoted to the gold plating and diamond encrusting of urinals there is no “market preference” for this state of affairs. A change in the pattern of distribution might lead the market to re-allocate urinal enhancement resources to flood prevention instead. There is no “preference” inherent *in the market itself* for an allocation oriented towards luxury toilets just as there was no “market preference” pushing allocation away from that before the change in distribution.

Distribution is a reflection of the political fight over the returns to various factors of production (not just wages, which you seem fixated on in your original comment), not a reflection of market “preferences”. The shape of any particular distribution will largely influence the shape of the allocations observed in the market but, again, markets, since they don't have minds, are indifferent to those particulars. Humans, on the other hand, are very concerned about distribution and the allocations that flow from it and spend a huge amount of time and energy trying to influence it.

The appeal of just so stories about markets that explain huge disparities in circumstance as natural outcomes of impersonal and uncontrollable forces is undeniable, but it turns out that these outcomes are actually amenable to alteration by human decisions that have moral significance. Sorry about that.

You can refute any thoerem on your own terms, but the test is to refute it on the author's.

Mine again: taking from the rich to give to the poor can not reduce but only increase income inequality.

If you can not refute that, and must accept it, on its own terms, the question remains: what more need be said about inequality?

Only this: that the idea of “taking from the rich to give to the poor” is not the only way to approach the problem of inequality. Giving to the poor is ineffective to the extent that it doesn't change their standard of living. Now “standard of living” is a complex notion that can't be reduced to level of consumption or expenditure. It has to do with habits, customs and beliefs. Taking from the rich is a misnomer because it is the rich who do the actual taking and who they take from is the median income people (who are commonly referred to as “middle class”) , not the rich.

It is, in fact, possible to do something about inequality without taking from the middle class and giving to poor. But it requires an understanding of economics quite different from the “rational actors with given preferences maximizing their utilities” hocus pocus. It requires, if you'll pardon the expression, a more conservative understanding of economics. By more conservative, I don't mean the right-wing, free enterprise, laissez faire Utopian success story clap trap that has mesmerized American know-it-alls and know-nothings at least since the gilded age. That more conservative view would readily dismiss the fiction that the predatory New Bureaucracy of CEOs who award themselves multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses are somehow being rewarded by “markets” (although I'm sure the boys and girls at Goldman Sachs would like you to keep believing that's true).

Let's establish that there are some inequalities of income that are fruitful in that they create incentives and rewards for effort and achievement. Let's also admit that their are other inequalities that simply reflect the pecuniary predation of slick operators. The key to reducing (unjust) inequality is to first distinguish between the two. Second, it is to discover what everyday habits of ordinary people contribute to the aggrandizement and institutionalization of the second kind of inequality. Thugs succeed not because they are tough and cynical but because people look up to their image of toughness and cynicism.