RE: General Welfare

[Shann Turnbull <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>]

I HAVE MADE SOME COMMENTS IN CAPITALS

At 07:31 AM 5/11/1999 , you wrote:
>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 THE
SOLUTION IS TO CHANGE THE RULES EG. OTCs is the 
>entire point of Kelsonian reforms. The unavoidable fact is that capital 
>tends to attract capital; AGREED in order for it to be spread broadly, new
means (OTCs ARE MORE TAX EFFICIENT THAN ESOPs)
>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. OTCs
TRANSFER FROM 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  EXCELLENT EXAMPLE
>
>
>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/
>

Shann Turnbull
P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350
Phone: 02 9328 7466 office; 02 9327 8487 home
Fax: 02 9327 1497 home & office.  Mobile 0418 222 378
Outside Australia, replace first "0" with "61" after international access code
Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu
http://www.mpx.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html