Home > Uncategorized > We need more redistribution

We need more redistribution

from Lars Syll

Income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient rose by about 36% in the 1980s under Thatcher, but the real story is the share of income that goes to people at the very top:

According to Greg Mankiw … in the United States the 1%’s share of total income, excluding capital gains, rose from about 8 percent in 1973 to 17 percent in 2010. Between 2010 and 2015 it’s risen from 17% to 22%!!

inequalityIt’s incredibly concentrated even among the super-rich. The top 0.01%’s share of national income – this is just 16,000 people in a country of 330 million – rose from 0.5% in 1973 to 3.3% in 2010 to 5% in 2015. Their share of income quadrupled in just 35 years …

Just giving people money is fine if you don’t mind them playing video games all day – but many people themselves would tell you that they don’t have the willpower to go back to school or find new work, even if they could do so in theory.

There’s a big role for government to direct investment towards these places, using the money we’ve taken from the winners from globalisation, either to support private industry or just set up our own industries to employ people the private sector won’t …

The super-rich are eating a bigger and bigger slice of the pie, for no good reason, and there are lots of things we could use that money for to make ordinary people’s lives better.

Sam Bowman

Mainstream economics textbooks usually refer to the interrelationship between technological development and education as the main causal force behind increased inequality. If the educational system (supply) develops at the same pace as technology (demand), there should be no increase, ceteris paribus, in the ratio between high-income (highly educated) groups and low-income (low education) groups. In the race between technology and education, the proliferation of skilled-biased technological change has, however, allegedly increased the premium for the highly educated group.

Another prominent explanation is that globalization – in accordance with Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage and the Wicksell-Heckscher-Ohlin-Stolper-Samuelson factor price theory – has benefited capital in the advanced countries and labour in the developing countries. The problem with these theories are that they explicitly assume full employment and international immobility of the factors of production. Globalization means more than anything else that capital and labour have to a large extent become mobile over country borders. These mainstream trade theories are really not applicable in the world of today, and they are certainly not able to explain the international trade pattern that has developed during the last decades. Although it seems as though capital in the developed countries has benefited from globalization, it is difficult to detect a similar positive effect on workers in the developing countries.

There are, however, also some other quite obvious problems with these kinds of inequality explanations. The World Top Incomes Database shows that the increase in incomes has been concentrated especially in the top 1%. If education was the main reason behind the increasing income gap, one would expect a much broader group of people in the upper echelons of the distribution taking part of this increase. It is dubious, to say the least, to try to explain, for example, the high wages in the finance sector with a marginal productivity argument. High-end wages seem to be more a result of pure luck or membership of the same ‘club’ as those who decide on the wages and bonuses, than of ‘marginal productivity.’

Mainstream economics, with its technologically determined marginal productivity theory, seems to be difficult to reconcile with reality. Although card-carrying neoclassical apologetics like Greg Mankiw want to recall John Bates Clark’s (1899) argument that marginal productivity results in an ethically just distribution, that is not something – even if it were true – we could confirm empirically, since it is impossible realiter to separate out what is the marginal contribution of any factor of production. The hypothetical ceteris paribus addition of only one factor in a production process is often heard of in textbooks, but never seen in reality.

When reading mainstream economists like Mankiw who argue for the ‘just desert’ of the 0.1 %, one gets a strong feeling that they are ultimately trying to argue that a market economy is some kind of moral free zone where, if left undisturbed, people get what they ‘deserve.’ To most social scientists that probably smacks more of being an evasive action trying to explain away a very disturbing structural ‘regime shift’ that has taken place in our societies. A shift that has very little to do with ‘stochastic returns to education.’ Those were in place also 30 or 40 years ago. At that time they meant that perhaps a top corporate manager earned 10–20 times more than ‘ordinary’ people earned. Today it means that they earn 100–200 times more than ‘ordinary’ people earn. A question of education? Hardly. It is probably more a question of greed and a lost sense of a common project of building a sustainable society.

Since the race between technology and education does not seem to explain the new growing income gap – and even if technological change has become more and more capital augmenting, it is also quite clear that not only the wages of low-skilled workers have fallen, but also the overall wage share – mainstream economists increasingly refer to ‘meritocratic extremism,’ ‘winners-take-all markets’ and ‘super star-theories’ for explanation. But this is also highly questionable.

Fans may want to pay extra to watch top-ranked athletes or movie stars performing on television and film, but corporate managers are hardly the stuff that people’s dreams are made of – and they seldom appear on television and in the movie theaters.

Everyone may prefer to employ the best corporate manager there is, but a corporate manager, unlike a movie star, can only provide his services to a limited number of customers. From the perspective of ‘super-star theories,’ a good corporate manager should only earn marginally better than an average corporate manager. The average earnings of corporate managers of the 50 biggest Swedish companies today, is equivalent to the wages of 46 blue-collar workers.

It is difficult to see the takeoff of the top executives as anything else but a reward for being a member of the same illustrious club. That they should be equivalent to indispensable and fair productive contributions – marginal products – is straining credulity too far. That so many corporate managers and top executives make fantastic earnings today, is strong evidence the theory is patently wrong and basically functions as a legitimizing device of indefensible and growing inequalities.

No one ought to doubt that the idea that capitalism is an expression of impartial market forces of supply and demand, bears but little resemblance to actual reality. Wealth and income distribution, both individual and functional, in a market society is to an overwhelmingly high degree influenced by institutionalized political and economic norms and power relations, things that have relatively little to do with marginal productivity in complete and profit-maximizing competitive market models – not to mention how extremely difficult, if not outright impossible it is to empirically disentangle and measure different individuals’ contributions in the typical team work production that characterize modern societies; or, especially when it comes to ‘capital,’ what it is supposed to mean and how to measure it. Remunerations do not necessarily correspond to any marginal product of different factors of production – or to ‘compensating differentials’ due to non-monetary characteristics of different jobs, natural ability, effort or chance.

Put simply – highly paid workers and corporate managers are not always highly productive workers and corporate managers, and less highly paid workers and corporate managers are not always less productive. History has over and over again disconfirmed the close connection between productivity and remuneration postulated in mainstream income distribution theory.

Neoclassical marginal productivity theory is obviously a collapsed theory from both a historical and a theoretical point of view, as shown already by Sraffa in the 1920s, and in the Cambridge capital controversy in the 1960s and 1970s.

When a theory is impossible to reconcile with facts there is only one thing to do — scrap it. And start redistributing!

  1. Yoshinori Shiozawa
    August 20, 2019 at 9:00 am

    >>Neoclassical marginal productivity theory is obviously a collapsed theory from both a historical and a theoretical point of view, as shown already by Sraffa in the 1920s, and in the Cambridge capital controversy in the 1960s and 1970s.

    Bravo! This is a great step forward toward a productive criticism, because this is a very rare case that Lars refers to one of heterodox economics in an affirmative context.

    >>Another prominent explanation is that globalization – in accordance with Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage and the Wicksell-Heckscher-Ohlin-Stolper-Samuelson factor price theory – has benefited capital in the advanced countries and labour in the developing countries. The problem with these theories are that they explicitly assume full employment and international immobility of the factors of production.

    If he complains that traditional trade theories assume full employment and Greg Makiw still argues on the basis of marginal productivity theory (he is right in these complaints), it would be better to note that there are now a new price theory which does not draw on marginal productivity and a theory of international trade based on the new price theory and which does not assume full employment.

    See my article: A large economics system with minimally rational agents.
    Chapter 2 in Shiozawa, Morioka and Taniguchi (2019) Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics, Springer.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334508762_Microfoundations_of_Evolutionary_Economics

    >>When a theory is impossible to reconcile with facts there is only one thing to do — scrap it.

    I have an objection to this last but one sentence. When a theory is impossible to reconcile with facts, one thing is to scrap the theory, but another more important thing is to rebuild a new theory.

  2. Ken Zimmerman
    August 22, 2019 at 2:11 pm

    The British economist William Jevons (1835–1882) believed it is important to study why people buy things. Jevons’ answer: because they like or enjoy what they buy. But that like diminishes with each new purchase. From this Jevons developed the notion of ‘marginal utility’.’ Imagine eating a toffee. You love it. It gives you a lot of satisfaction, or ‘utility,’ as economists call it. But as you eat more toffees the pleasure you get from an extra one won’t be as great. The tenth toffee is nice, but not as nice as the first. After eating fifteen toffees you start to tire of them. Perhaps the twentieth toffee gives you no pleasure at all. The pleasure from an extra toffee is its marginal utility. ‘Margin’ means the edge of something, so the ‘edge’ of your utility from toffees is the utility of the very last one you ate. The tendency of marginal utility to go down as you consume more is known as the ‘principle of diminishing marginal utility’. Marginal utility is one of the most important ideas in economics. Jevons used it to explain how people spend their money. Jevons created what’s called a model of human actions. Or, in other words, a simplified picture of human actions, and how people explain these actions. And what are their results. Models zero in on the key thing the economists want to explain. Here it’s the basic problem of scarcity. In real life you know that you have a limited amount of money to spend and that there are lots of things to buy. You can’t have all of them. It’s true that you don’t stand there calculating like a robot, but somehow you make sure that you spread your limited amount of money in a way that makes you happy. Not always happier than other action possibilities. And certainly not happy in some optimum way. Marginal utility theory is, say economists a way of making a model for all this precise enough to be confirmed scientifically. Which, unfortunately economists have not done. In the late 19th century this model became the foundation of a whole new approach to economics. Today it’s one of the basic models used by many economists. Jevons died before he’d fully worked out the model, but the British economist Alfred Marshall (1842–1924) took over, developing such principles as the law of demand, which asserts prices influence decisions about purchasing. A high price leads to low demand for a good or service, a low price to high demand, and diminishing marginal utility shows the source of the law. A purchaser compares their marginal utility for the next “whatever” with the price asked for that next “whatever.” The marginal utility model is used to describe the actions of firms as well as individuals. A firm produces another spoon if the extra revenue from selling it (marginal revenue) is higher than the cost of making it (marginal cost). From this Marshall developed a model of supply and demand. And with this model, ‘demand curves,’ ‘supply curves,’ ‘price curves,’ etc. Voila, economists are off to advanced mathematics seminars. Since Marshall invented these models, economists argued, supply determines price, demand determines price, price determines supply and demand in some fashion, or none of the above. Best that can be said, since economists have never systematically examined these possibilities is that together supply, and demand influence price, and price sometimes feeds back to supply and/or demand. By this time Marshall being more a mathematician than an economist changed focus and screwed up economics up to the present time. He concluded that the market can develop a balance (‘equilibrium’) when the demand for a good or service is exactly equal to the supply – where the demand and supply curves cross. To add insult to mathematical foolishness, Marshall asserted that equilibrium tends to be the normal situation for most markets. It happens when the price is at a level at which firms want to produce the same number of a good or service that consumers want to buy.

    The entire notion of marginal utility and the models developed from it are filled with enough empirical glitches to fill a hundred books. Just a few examples. First none of the terms upon which marginal utility economics is hung are ever clearly defined or identified by economists. Second, to make marginal utility workable, economists were forced to invent ‘rational economic man,’ (homo economicus) who perfectly balances marginal this with marginal that to achieve an optimal result. This soon became economists’ main theory of how and why people perform. Most social scientists and historians complained that these theories are from stem to stern unrealistic. Have economists ever met any real people, critics asked and continue to ask? All theories must simplify, the question is how far to go. For most social scientists and historians, and even some economists ‘rational economic man’ was a big step too far. Economist Joan Robinson says this about marginal productivity theory, “The very essence of the theory is bound up with a particular institution — wage labour. The central doctrine is that ‘wages tend to equal marginal product of labour.’ Obviously this has no meaning for a peasant household where all share the work and the income of their holding according to the rules of family life; nor does it apply in a [co-operative] where, the workers” council has to decide what part of net proceeds to allot to investment, what part to a welfare fund and what part to distribute as wage.” Put another way, as any historian would likely point out marginal utility theory is created as specific times and places. And is not either applicable or comprehensible outside those situations. And, considering the high levels of oversimplification of these situations by economists, the theories may not even be comprehensible or applicable any longer in these situations.

    • Yoshinori Shiozawa
      August 23, 2019 at 3:05 am

      The first paragraph of Ken’s post at August 22, 2019 at 2:11 pm is an account on how two British economists Jevons and Marshall came to formulate a “model of supply and demand.” As Ken put it, “this model became the foundation of a whole new approach to economics. Today it’s one of the basic models used by many economists.”

      Ken is right. This basic model is now called equilibrium theory. It is developed for example to a General Equilibrium model like that of Arrow and Debreu (Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy, Econometrica 22:265-90, 1954) and now one of the moral supports for DSGE model, which is actually the main tool of macroeconomic analyses and economic persuasions (i.e. free market ideology for New Classical economists and claim for government intervention for New Keynesian economists). If we admit this theory and its derivative variants are wrong (Ken’s second paragraph is some examples for this reasoning), we should ask how to redress economic theory into a right track. In scientific arguments, as old dictum says, it takes a theory to beat a theory.

      • Robert Locke
        August 23, 2019 at 12:47 pm

        How is this for a theory, since people think theory is used to justify self-interest of groups, theory should be that interested parties in matters of pay co-determine the outcomes.

      • Ken Zimmerman
        August 23, 2019 at 2:41 pm

        Robert, that’s the way it’s taught in MBA school. But the real issues are access and the ratio of influence. If you can’t get access, then you can’t co-determine the outcome. And if you do get access how much influence do you have? 50-50 is workable. 90-10 against you is not.

    • Yoshinori Shiozawa
      August 23, 2019 at 3:27 am

      In addition to the history described in Ken’s first paragraph, it would be better that readers know there were a parallel history which remained undercurrent and “heterodox” to marginal theory of demand and supply or equilibrium theory but did not draw on subjective theory of utility. It starts from David Ricardo, passing Karl Marx (in the 19th century), revived by Piero Sraffa (in the 20th century) and became the main inspiration of contemporary classical theory of value including the new theory of international values. See the article cited in my post at August 20, 2019 at 9:00 am. For more shorter and easier account, see
      Shiozawa, Y. (2016) The revival of classical theory of value. Chapter 8, pp.151-172 In Yokokawa et al. (eds.) The Rejuvenation of Political Economy, Routledge.

      • Ken Zimmerman
        August 23, 2019 at 2:35 pm

        Yoshinori, according to neo-classical and today neo-liberal economists the “rational economic person” decides what to do by weighing up marginal costs and marginal benefits, for example by comparing the price of an ice cream cone with its utility. For economists, the economy is made up of cool-headed people who do all these calculations perfectly every time. Even if that were possible, which all the research in biology, psychology, and neuroscience says it is not, how does that cool-headed person distinguish a cost from a benefit? That involves creating “seams” in the flow of consciousness. This part is benefit, while this part is cost. It also involves some form of judgment about where to draw these seams. That’s developed from experiences. But since humans’ experiences are not identical, the edges of seams will be different from person to person. In the community of humans that problem is dealt with through accounts and feedback on these accounts. And, just like building a railroad is placing sets of rails and ties after one another till you’ve gone from “micro” to “macro,” so accounts and feedback work the same from pairs of humans to multiples of corporations, communities, and nations. Also, just like railroads, the accounts and feedback require constant upkeep and revisions, from just a bit to entire reworks. All of this is verified by thousands of studies in all the social sciences and history. Now comes economics to reject all of this. And reject it with virtually no empirical study. The absurdity this leads to is seen in 1840s France. An economist sent a letter to the French parliament on behalf of candle manufacturers. Candle makers complain that they’re being ruined by competition from a rival who’s flooding the market with light at a rock-bottom price. Who’s the fearsome competitor threatening to drive them out of business? It’s the sun. The candle makers ask parliament to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows and curtains and the blocking up of any holes that let in sunlight. The law would both save the candle factories and help to make France rich, they say. The letter was a joke but consider how many such situations are not.

        Allow me to change the “old” dictum you cite, it takes a better theory to beat a theory. By better I mean a theory directly connected to the ways of life you as a social scientist want to study and understand. It helps no one to proffer a theory that has no or little relationship to objects of the social scientist’s study. And that can be determined only by first observing, in the broad sense of study via qualitative and quantitative research tools of both historical and contemporary actions and events of persons, classes, corporations, etc. Only speculative, detached theory is possible before such study. In the dictum of biologists, theories begin with life, life does not begin with theories. And even if the social scientist does it all correctly, which is unlikely, at best the scientist will still create many errors, misunderstandings, diversions, and fabrications to be fixed. After all, in this sense humans studying humans is no different from humans studying nature. The social scientist must apply their judgment to create seams in research data and research interpretations, and then in research conclusions and theory. Being a part of the research object may help or hinder that process, depending on the situation. Speaking reflexively, science is like any other human way of life, requiring the same actions and leaving the same uncertainties in the effort to reveal the object as clearly as one can.

      • Yoshinori Shiozawa
        August 24, 2019 at 9:19 am

        I admit that there are many economic issues that heavily draw on socially constructed reality. I also willingly admit that “at best the (social) scientist will still create many errors, misunderstandings, diversions, and fabrications to be fixed. After all, in this sense humans studying humans is no different from humans studying nature”. However, what may be the fundamental difference between Ken and me is that Ken does not believe there will be a progress in social sciences and I still believe it is possible.

        When I cite the dictum “it takes a theory to beat a theory”, of course the the first theory must be better than the second one, although it is often difficult to see whether a theory is better than the other. When I speak of parallel history and claim that the old marginal theory value is to be replaced by a new theory value, I am thinking that the new theory is better by the criterion that Ken contends to satisfy. Indeed, it is “a theory directly connected to the ways of life [we] as a social scientist want to study and understand”.

        When I say it is “directly connected”, ti does not mean that I myself collected the data and stories. It is beyond the capability of a single person.

        My article: “A large economics system with minimally rational agents” which is Chapter 2 in Shiozawa, Morioka and Taniguchi (2019) Microfoundations of Evolutionary Economics, Springer:
        has employed a form of axiomatic method and I have assumed in total 18 postulates. But as I have warned at the beginning of my Introduction it is not the claim that those postulates are evident. It is not even the claim that those postulates are valid for all situations and for all times. As I have put it, “Postulates are chosen so as to show the main mechanisms by which the modern market economy works” and “[t]he set of postulates is intended to show our ‘strong case’ in order to aid our understanding of how the huge network of production and exchanges works.” (p.53)

        In the second paragraph of page 54, I have put it, I am thinking that “The reality of the postulates is the first thing wh should care about.” “In this chapter, we assume postulates are based on economic laws that are distilled form empirical observations through a long history of argumentation, We can therefore claim that they have strong links to reality.”

      • Yoshinori Shiozawa
        August 24, 2019 at 9:22 am

        The main tenet of our theory can be paraphrased by three pillars:
        (a) separations of price and quantity adjustment
        (b) prices are not the main agents that bring demand and supply near equal. They have another function which is to give direction to technological changes.
        (c) firm’s quantity adjustment operation brings near equality of supply and demand.

        This is a total revolution how the modern market economy works. This understanding became possible because of what I named Taniguchi-Morioka results. By this scheme we were liberated from the unrealistic assumption that economic agents behave like a utility and profit optimizing agents. It gives an alternative account on how the large economy (as big as world economy) can normally work even when all agents are pursuing their own objectives that are different for each. This is the reason why we claimed that Taniguchi-Morioka results have a paramount significance because this is the unique solution with regard to Adam Smith problem.

      • Yoshinori Shiozawa
        August 24, 2019 at 9:24 am

        The main tenet of our theory can be paraphrased by three pillars:
        (a) separations of price and quantity adjustment
        (b) prices are not the main agents that bring demand and supply near equal. They have another function which is to give direction to technological changes.
        (c) firm’s quantity adjustment operation brings near equality of supply and demand.

        This is a total revolution how the modern market economy works. This understanding became possible because of what I named Taniguchi-Morioka results. By this scheme we were liberated from the irrealistic assumption that economic agents behave like a utility and profit optimizing agents. It gives an alternative account on how the large economy (as big as world economy) can normally work even when all agents are pursuing their own objectives that are different for each. This is the reason why we claimed that Taniguchi-Morioka results have a paramount significance because this is the unique solution with regard to Adam Smith problem.

      • Ken Zimmerman
        August 24, 2019 at 10:11 am

        Yoshinori, let me see if I’ve got this correct. The goal of the theory put forth by you and others is a description of capitalism as it functions today, a means to reform that capitalism, or an entirely new economic system which may be capitalistic?

      • Yoshinori Shiozawa
        August 24, 2019 at 11:08 am

        I am sorry for double postings above (on August 24, 2019 at 9:22 am and at 9:24 am). The blog system did not worked well for a while.

        Of course, our theory is a description of capitalism as it functions today. A vision to reform it may come out of our theory, but is is not our primary task.

        There are plenty of reform proposals, but can they be correct or just ones when we do not know how the today’s capitalism works as a system? Our (or conventional) understanding of market economy / mechanism is so distorted.

      • Craig
        August 24, 2019 at 6:46 pm

        Of course a model must be descriptive and detailed. The
        question is: Is it significantly so? Does it enlighten in ways previous models/orthodoxies did not? If it does not change orthodoxies it is derivative and mere reform. Take the most significant, prevalent and problematic factor….like money/credit for instance….and try to find a new way to create and distribute it that changes its present scarcity into abundance while resolving current seeming un-resolvable problems…and that might be a nice little theory….that would also be a mega paradigm change.

        Redistribution is an orthodox aspect of the old paradigm duality of socialism-capitalism. The third integrative way may have some taxation, but for the right reasons (to discourage economic and financial vices) but it will end broad re-distributive taxation that is a dodge and merely ham strings any means of ending finance’s monopoly on credit creation in the current paradigm of Debt Only.

        Directness as opposed to vias/orthodox and monopoly indirectness has always been an aspect of paradigm changes (nomadic wandering for survival vs direct tilling of the ground and practicing individual animal husbandry, salvation via monopoly enforced church sacraments vs a direct relationship with god, enforced monetary distribution via employment and debt/loan only vs direct universal distribution of monetary gifts and strategic increases in purchasing power at the significant and powerful terminal ending point in the economic process at
        retail sale).

      • Yoshinori Shiozawa
        August 25, 2019 at 5:15 am

        Craig,
        there are many points that I cannot understand. It may be necessary to explain each other more in details and with concrete cases. In my impression, you are too strongly interested to distribution/re-distribution problems and are neglecting what is happening now in the actual system of capitalism/market economy.

        At the level of understanding on how a large system as large as world economy works, I believe our results are surely a revolution or, if you like, a paradigm change.

        As I have explained in my post on August 24, 2019 at 9:22 am, our tenet is composed of three pillars: (a), (b), and (c). To make the comparison more explicit, it would be useful to summarize the traditional theory (including not only neoclassical / mainstream theory but also many of heterodox economics) in three corresponding pillars. They may be expressed as follows:

        (a’) Price and quantity are determined simultaneously.
        (b’) Equilibrium (or near equality of supply and demand) is brought by the change of prices (price adjustment)
        (c’) Firms and consumers decide the quantity that they supply and demand at the given set of prices.

        Please compare these with our contentions (a), (b), and (c). Do you think this is a minor change and not a significant change of the vision? (a), (b), and (c) is a complete negation of what is taught as economics at high school level. This is very basic change of our understanding on how economy works.

        These ideas for traditional economics are the same for Marshall and Walras. The only difference is that Marshall believed that this price mechanism works for each product separately and Walras believed this price mechanism works simultaneously for all products and prices have the power to bring economy in a state where supply and demand become equal for all products at a certain set of prices. I think Marshallian theory has some relevance but most of traditional/mainstream economists believe that Walrasian theory is better as microeconomics. The phrase like Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model is an expression of this thought.

        In the traditional Walrasian framework, there is no entity that plays the role of money. Some economists add N+1 product called money but it plays no role in the exchange, because all transactions are cleared and cancel out by the assumption of general equilibrium. In the new theory, we should assume money exists, but it is only a medium of exchange. It does not play particular roles that ordinary Post Keynesian economists expect. Simple stated, our theory is a theory of real economy in the sense that it describes economic process including production, distribution, investment and consumption. It is not a theory of financial economy (which comprises Finance, Insurance and Real Estate). In this sense, our theory is still limited and does not cover all domains of economic activities. However, we think that such a theory of everything in economy is for the moment hopeless (or impossible). Even in physics, we have hardly arrived at the grand unified theory.

        To add some words on redistribution and its reform, redistribution is in some sense artificial interventions on the natural/spontaneous economic processes. Even if it is possible, you can only redistribute the surplus of the production process. So, in my judgement, re-distribution reform or policies must be made on the right understanding of the economic process. If not, you may tread the same path as Utopian (and scientific) socialist walked.

  3. Craig
    August 22, 2019 at 8:50 pm

    Marginalism is false, but re-distributism is old paradigm. Tying monetary policy to the ending point of the economic/productive process with a 50% discount/rebate policy resolves individual monetary scarcity, systemic austerity and price and asset inflation all in one fell swoop. Look at it. Look at its immediate empirical, mathematical and paradigmatic effects. JFC, enough fiddling around with reforms that just keep the present elite and paradigm in enslaving effect. The new mega paradigm change is Abundantly Direct and Reciprocal Monetary Gifting.

  4. Yoshinori Shiozawa
    August 25, 2019 at 5:31 am

    Please read my comment (August 24, 2019 at 10:54 am) on Lars Syll’s article
    https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/08/23/marginal-productivity-theory-a-dangerous-thought-virus/

    Distribution is closely related to price theory. So, the change of price theory has a big importance for all distribution (of incomes) and re-distribution arguments. It is very dangerous to argue distribution and re-distribution based on a bad price theory. To think that we can neglect price theory in the examinations of distribution and re-distribution is also a gross error.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.