Re: EOpriv: OWNERSHIP: Aggregates and Ownership

["Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>]

Read Kelso, Ashford, Shakespeare and CESJ materials for your answers.

Norm Kurland

John Médaille wrote:

> I have a question for the economists on the list, and it is likely a naive
> question. Is it the accepted opinion that an economy can be described
> entirely (or at least adequately) in terms of aggregates of wealth and
> income, or must the mathematics encompass the distribution curves of the
> same? I believe that this question is equivalent to the question, "Is
> justice intrinsic to economics, or is it economics indifferent to justice?"
>
> ISTM that the distribution curves always embody some notion of justice,
> whether that notion be "the rich should rule" or "everybody should get the
> same," or whatever. Now if an economy of a given amount of wealth and
> income operates the same, or nearly, regardless of what the actual
> distributions might be, then we must conclude, I think, that justice is
> extrinsic to economics. However, if different curves describe different
> economies in terms of stability, investment opportunity, market size, etc.,
> then economics willy-nilly embodies some particular view of justice; the
> two cannot rationally be separated. If the later is the case, as I suspect
> it is, then justice can be "justified" on purely economic grounds. And one
> can then work either way: one can validly criticize the economy on moral
> grounds, with the result of producing a stronger economy, or one can adopt
> purely economic criteria (market stability in terms of freedom from
> recession, for example) to reach a more moral system. Or, to state it
> another way, moral criteria will have an equivalent in purely economic
> terms, and vice-versa. Thus, one can say in moralistic terms, "Each work
> ought to be able to earn enough to support his family and obtain some
> reasonable security," or one can say in economistic terms, "a broadened
> purchasing base leads to more stable markets, increased competition, and
> better investment opportunities, etc." The two statements would really
> refer to the same thing, but from different points of view.
>
> My understanding of Keynes (which is probably incorrect) is that he was
> somewhat schizophrenic on this issue. He described the economy in terms of
> aggregates, but the whole point of his theory was to pump funds from the
> wealthy to the less wealthy in order to keep the "money machine" supplied
> with purchasing power. ISTM that if you could describe the economy solely
> in terms of aggregates, then there is no need to improve the purchasing
> power of the mass of men, at least not from a purely economic standpoint.
>
> IAC, in the vast literature of economics, there must be some writings and
> studies done on this. Has anybody got any suggestions for reading?
>
> John C. Médaille
>
> "A dead thing can go with the stream...
> but only a living thing can go against it."
>          -G. K. Chesterton
> http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm
> john@medaille.com