RE: General Welfare

["David Spitzley" <dspitzle@gw.wash.k12.mi.us>]

To a large extent, you're right about option #2.  The fact is that the near 
impossibility of achieving #2 under current social and economic rules is the 
entire point of Kelsonian reforms.  The unavoidable fact is that capital tends 
to attract capital; in order for it to be spread broadly, new means must be 
found for new people to acquire pieces of newly created capital, because it 
will otherwise end up in the hands of the existing owners.  I am suddenly 
seized by a vision of the Newtonian nature of capital: a planet in orbit around 
the sun, which always winds up traveling the same path unless something from 
outside can change its course.

>>> Michael Harrington <mharrington@milken-inst.org> 11/04/99 02:27PM >>>
The preference ordering makes sense to me with #2 clearly superior and #3
clearly inferior. #1 and #4 might be less clear depending on the reasons why
some people are worse off. I would imagine that #1 looks more like reality
to economists and #2 looks more like a Christmas list and economists don't
generally believe in Santa Claus (just a little levity there).
Michael


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Bell [mailto:dbell@kent.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 10:20 AM
To: ownership@cog.kent.edu 
Subject: Re: General Welfare


What would economists say about defining General Welfare
in the following way:

If GDP grows on a macrolevel from 1000 to 2000,
four things can happen.

1. Everyone has the same piece of the 1000 they had before.
   The new 1000 accrues to a concentrated group.
   No one is worse off economically.
   A small percentage are much better off.
   Wealth is more concentrated than before.

2. Everyone has the same piece of the 1000 they had before.
   The new 1000 accrues to a broad segment of the population,
    such that many people have a bigger piece than they had
    before.
   No one is worse off economically.
   A large percentage are better off.
   Wealth is less concentrated than before.

3. Some have a smaller piece of the 1000 than they had before.
   Part of the original 1000 as well as all of the new 1000
    accrues to a concentrated group.
   Some are worse off economically.
   A small percentage are much better off.
   Wealth is more concentrated than before.
 
4. Some have a smaller piece of the 1000 than they had before.
   Part of the original 1000 as well as all of the new 1000
    accrues to a broad segment of the population, such that
    many people have a bigger piece than they had before.
   Some are worse off economically.
   A large percentage are better off.
   Wealth is less concentrated than before.

I think that #2 clearly benefits the General Welfare
because no one is worse off and many are better off.

#1 is less clear, but some might say it benefits the
General Welfare because no one is worse off and many
are better off.

#3 and #4 may be said not to benefit the General
Welfare because some are worse off. Here we get into
the moral "should" issues, like, are the some who
are worse off those who "should not have been" as
well off as they were before? Are they still better
off than the average person?

Dan Bell
--
Dan Bell
International Program Coordinator
Ohio Employee Ownership Center
Kent State University
Kent, OH 44242
(330) 672-3028
(330) 672-4063 fax
dbell@kent.edu 
http://www.kent.edu/oeoc/