There is a proper degree of inequality -- too much central planning or regulation to produce complete equality stifles innovation and leads to all sorts of problems. Too much inequality and deregulation leads to instability.
When people talk about income inequality being bad, they're talking about bad income inequality, not acceptable income inequality.
So things that increase income inequality in such a way that it is unchecked or unregulated are bad, and income inequality needs to be controlled directly through regulation and taxation, and directly through increased government spending and full employment.
When PG says "income inequality isn't bad per se" I take it to mean that he sees the current level of income inequality, for example, in the US, as not bad, which is incorrect. The levels of income inequality in the US are causing problems with stability in the economy. He also doesn't see a problem with increasing the current levels of inequality in income in the US.
If he means that some level of inequality of income is acceptable then he's not being very clear about it.
Just as some level of inflation is acceptable, some level of lead and arsenic in drinking water, and some level of sugar consumption is acceptable, so too is some level of income inequality acceptable.
EDIT: changed "inequality" to "equality" in first line ...
> When PG says "income inequality isn't bad per se" I take it to mean that he sees the current level of income inequality, for example, in the US, as not bad,
Well, then you are more generous than I am. To me, it is a classic strawman and leads the whole essay astray. But I see then we do not disagree. I thought you were trying to support the strawman with your links.
When people talk about income inequality being bad, they're talking about bad income inequality, not acceptable income inequality.
So things that increase income inequality in such a way that it is unchecked or unregulated are bad, and income inequality needs to be controlled directly through regulation and taxation, and directly through increased government spending and full employment.
When PG says "income inequality isn't bad per se" I take it to mean that he sees the current level of income inequality, for example, in the US, as not bad, which is incorrect. The levels of income inequality in the US are causing problems with stability in the economy. He also doesn't see a problem with increasing the current levels of inequality in income in the US.
If he means that some level of inequality of income is acceptable then he's not being very clear about it.
Just as some level of inflation is acceptable, some level of lead and arsenic in drinking water, and some level of sugar consumption is acceptable, so too is some level of income inequality acceptable.
EDIT: changed "inequality" to "equality" in first line ...
reply