Wednesday, August 15, 2012
You gotta read this on immorality and inequality"
Many have suggested that the "science" in the social sciences (e.g. sociology, economics, psychology, etc.) is largely illusory. Too many "scientists" let their ideology (or "morals") get in the way of the objectivity that science requires. One example of this may be the Arming America book scandal. Here's another possible example from an economist:
" What's wrong with the economy can be traced to the growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else. . . . I'm not arguing for the elimination of inequality. Bur the extreme that we've reached is really bad. We could have a more equal society and a more efficient, stable, higher-growing economy. That's really the "so what." Even if you don't have any moral values and you just want to maximize GDP, this level of inequality is bad."
Wow! Economic inequality is the cause of problems with the economy. Further, it appears that anyone with moral values (like the writer's) would want less inequality. Shame on you folks who aren't smart enough to figure this out and are immoral enough to support a system with this much economic inequality. Is this writer's left-wing sense of morality influencing his analysis? Talk about demonizing the opposition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote "What's wrong with the economy can be traced to the growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else ...". This statement fits well with the Communist manifesto's opening remarks.
ReplyDeleteEquality is a subjective term. It depends upon the topic being discussed. If referring to inherited individual rights, equality is rightfully justified. When talking about economies, however, opportunity is what counts. That said, true prosperity is incompatible with absolute economic equality.
44: Agreed. Most Americans believe in equal legal rights and equal opportunity. Only a few (left-wing ideologues) believe in government-enforced equality of outcome. While this economist may not believe in total government-enforced equality of outcome, he obviously wants the government to do something about the current immoral level of income inequality. However, where is the line as to how much is too much? Further, if as many have suggested, inequality is immoral (and a violation of social justice) the logic is that it all must be eliminated. Once we start down that slippery slope, where does it stop? This economist reflects the arrogant, self-righteousness that inflicts many on the far left. Political correctness is not about policy choices, it is about morality. Their world is a black-and-white one where there can be no compromise with evil, and the evil people must be punished. It reminds me of the extreme Temperance mentality that led to Prohibition. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in progressive income taxes (higher rates for higher incomes), and government programs for the truly needy, etc. but I do not see this as a moral issue.
ReplyDeleteWhat good are " ... progressive income taxes (higher rates for higher incomes), and government programs for the truly needy..."? Not only is this forced wealth redistribution, but it's purely a domestic concern. Why is the national government even involved?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete