Posted on 01/14/2017 3:03:02 AM PST by oblomov
There is inequality and inequality.
The first is the inequality people tolerate, such as one’s understanding compared to that of people deemed heroes, say Einstein, Michelangelo, or the recluse mathematician Grisha Perelman, in comparison to whom one has no difficulty acknowledging a large surplus. This applies to entrepreneurs, artists, soldiers, heroes, the singer Bob Dylan, Socrates, the current local celebrity chef, some Roman Emperor of good repute, say Marcus Aurelius; in short those for whom one can naturally be a “fan”. You may like to imitate them, you may aspire to be like them; but you don’t resent them.
The second is the inequality people find intolerable because the subject appears to be just a person like you, except that he has been playing the system, and getting himself into rent seeking, acquiring privileges that are not warranted –and although he has something you would not mind having (which may include his Russian girlfriend), he is exactly the type of whom you cannot possibly become a fan. The latter category includes bankers, bureaucrats who get rich, former senators shilling for the evil firm Monsanto, clean-shaven chief executives who wear ties, and talking heads on television making outsized bonuses. You don’t just envy them; you take umbrage at their fame, and the sight of their expensive or even semi-expensive car trigger some feeling of bitterness. They make you feel smaller.
There may be something dissonant in the spectacle of a rich slave.
The author Joan Williams, in an insightful article, explains that the working class is impressed by the rich, as role models. Michèle Lamont, the author of The Dignity of Working Men, whom she cites, did a systematic interview of blue collar Americans and found present a resentment of professionals but, unexpectedly, not of the rich.
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...
The evolution of Taleb's thinking is interesting. He has come to embrace the concrete and tangible over the abstract. In parallel with this, his occasional commentary on politics has taken a conservative turn.
From the article:
In this chapter I will propose that effectively what people resent –or should resent –is the person at the top who has no skin in the game, that is, because he doesn’t bear his allotted risk, is immune to the possibility of falling from his pedestal, exiting the income or wealth bracket, and getting to the soup kitchen. Again, on that account, the detractors of Donald Trump, when he was a candidate, failed to realize that, by advertising his episode of bankruptcy and his personal losses of close to a billion dollars, they removed the resentment (the second type of inequality) one may have towards him.
There is something respectable in losing a billion dollars, provided it is your own money.
In addition, someone without skin in the game –say a corporate executive with upside and no financial downside (the type to speak clearly in meetings) –is paid according to some metrics that do not necessarily reflect the health of the company; these (as we saw in Chapter x) he can manipulate, hide risks, get the bonus, then retire (or go to another company) and blame his successor for the subsequent results.
We will also, in the process, redefine inequality and put the notion on more rigorous grounds. But we first need to introduce the difference between two types of approaches, the static and the dynamic, as skin in the game can transform one type of inequality into another.
Take also the two following remarks:
True equality is equality in probability
and
Skin in the game prevents systems from rotting
bfl
I like the articles intent, but the execution is painful.
Agreed. I hope Taleb has a good editor for his book.
“Skin in the game” is the reason the founding fathers limited voting to property owners; anyone else could simply move on if things didn’t work out. I support a similar system, though not linked to property ownership (since there are many more ways for someone to contribute tax revenue that 200 years ago); while I own a home, people who are net contributors through any combination of taxes should be able to vote - while those who are net takers should not. This could be a cumulative measure (so retirees or people on disability who have paid for years or decades aren’t disenfranchised); I don’t have specifics, but allowing people who contribute nothing and never intend to contribute anything to have a voice in how the net contributors’ money is spent inevitably involves the net takers (gibsmedats) steering other peoples’ money to themselves.
This issue is coming to a head in many urban areas (soon to be whole states) where services are rapidly disappearing because there are no current revenues. Importing foreigners to keep housing and classrooms occupied while keeping the public employee caste on the gravy train worsens the matter; those fleeing these areas are usually the net contributors, while those remaining as well as those trafficked in from abroad are usually net takers. I have no sympathy for those trapped in violent, decaying areas because 99% of the time they are of the net taker population; if they can’t afford goods and services on their own (including police protection), then they simply don’t get them.
exactly. Anyone on social services should NOT be able to vote. This does not include social security recipients over the age of 60.
I work with a woman whose husband is “100% disabled” yet manages to run a dog breeding business in her name. He has a “bad back” but yet routinely hosts large Labrador retrievers in and out of kennels, 60 lb plus bags of dog food, etc.
Very well stated.
The stupid and the lazy are clearly unequal. They get exactly what they deserve. Leeching off the working class is a poor occupation of liberals everywhere.
Any chance of you getting a high level post in the Trump administration?
This has been my view for a long time, though you have much better ideas on how to factor previously productive retirees into the equation.
Great post! Great post! Great post!
I can’t believe it isn’t worthwhile to have investigators bust those people; as much as the added personnel cost, these moochers swindle us out of millions. There is a danger in having a government representative certify people as disabled (since in lean times they might deem everyone 100% fit), but these scams are costly and create a whole new class of people - “working while disabled” - which is MUCH more costly than working “under the table” itself.
Thank you! I’m a younger Archie Bunker of sorts...
Thank you, but with a family and mortgage I need something more long-term than a job with a presidential administration. While Democrats like to focus on the votes of young (often foreign) people, it appears they’ve sacrificed older American voters to achieve that - the reductions in Medicare to fund ObamaCare being a glaring case in point. Sadly, the government now seems determined to minimize the costs of retirees who often contributed HALF A CENTURY to our tax base. By the time I reach retirement age (67), I will have been taxed for working (on the books) for 53 years.
And I don’t blame middle class white males for working under the table (those NOT on the dole) to guard against punitive child support edicts.
A different issue, but I understand it. Unfortunately, many people just react with the knee-jerk reaction: “It’s for the children” (whether the children see a penny of it or not).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.