Ideal Distribution of Wealth

[MindMover]

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/41483660@N04/7009135329/][img][/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/41483660@N04/7009135329/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/41483660@N04/]pbmus[/url], on Flickr

An ideal may be a grand theoretical system like John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, or just something you wish for, like “my ideal vacation.”

But about the ideal distribution of wealth, there isn’t much difference between the grand theory and what most people want.

In the chart above, based on research by Dan Ariely at Duke and Michael Norton at Harvard, both Democrats and Republicans significantly overestimate the share of our wealth that belongs to the poorest 20% of us.

It’s almost nothing! You can’t even see it on the chart!

More surprising is Norton and Ariely’s finding that Republicans as well as Democrats favor a much more even distribution of wealth, and the ideal for Republicans would just about triple the wealth of our poorest fellow-citizens.

So I think it’s fair to say that almost all of us would prefer something more in tune with John Rawls’ maximin principle, which provides decent prospects for the poor, instead of the brutal inequality of the actual distribution of wealth in America today.

http://blogs.alternet.org/jacobfreeze/2012/03/22/ideal-distribution-of-wealth/?

===========================================================

So you want to know what redistribution looks like.....here it is....and Republicans think this is a good idea....fancy that.........

[CAPHAVOC]

1. Good charts

I like Rawls too. I actually think we should have actual distribution to the bottom and get rid of all the failed government social programs. Replace it all with a minimum income. We could then quit squabbling over welfare programs, and SNAP, and all the other mismanaged disasters. Combined with Medicare A and B we could then get on with productive lives. Of course then the GOP and DNC would not have anything to fool us all with while their 1% take all the stakes.

[MindMover]

2. Something that simple and easily understood would not....

be palatable to those who want to control......and coerce.....and enslave.....

the model of every-man for himself and to pick yourself up by your bootstraps mentality is soon coming to a screeching halt......

you can hear the screams, see the flames and smell the thunderous roar of humanity saying enough already.....

from this shore to the thousands of shores around this world.......We The People ....

[CAPHAVOC]

3. Yep

It seems that way. Besides what would all the social engineers do? They would be stuck at minimum income. The veil of ignorance comes in handy some days.

[JayhawkSD]

4. When did anyone in this nation favor social engineering? n/t

[Igel]

5. Fairly often.

The abolitionists did. Great Awakening II was also an attempt social engineering (and I've often wondered if there's a link between the two).

The WCTU certainly did.

The suffragettes did.

So did the Progressives. As well as the KKK.

Let's not forget Prohibition.

John Dewey and the public education movement certainly did.

The GI Bill was all about social engineering. As was the mortgage deduction.

Those behind the Great Society did. As did those behind the Civil Rights Act. Hippies did.

And so did the Religious Right.

Welfare reform is as much social engineering as it is fiscal anything-else-ism.

The anti-smoking campaign is social engineering. As was the tolerance campaigns in public schools. The Gay Rights movement is another attempt at social engineering.

All these things sought to alter how people thought and what they believed; they sought to change people's behavior, by propagandization or moral arguments or attempts at shaming the unwanted behavior; or by force majeure ensconced behind law. They all had an idea of how to engineer society to make it better and more just, and all the ideas were originally partial, belonging to one segment of society.

Behind them were all individuals who believed that they were uniquely suited to be engineers of the human soul. Marx aside, they all also used, in their writings, the language of power. Because they were more moral or just they had a higher claim on power over others.

Eh. Primates.