OWNERSHIP: Aggregates and Ownership

[John Médaille <john@medaille.com>]

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