At 11:22 6/07/98 -0500, Robert Naiman wrote:
>I have been reading Alec Nove's "Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited"
>and came across his argument that the Left is misguided when it puts too
>much emphasis on the wealth of the super-rich, on the grounds that
>redistributing the wealth or
I had a file of articles from my pre-computer days that I cannot
locate. The subject was about wartime devastation as an advantage
because it wiped out old capital stocks.
Do any of you geezers recall any of that literature?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
C
michael perelman wrote:
> see us. Winning a lottery does not change all that; nor would redistribution. Marx
> discussed this problem in his brief mention about the difficulty of building
>socialism with a people who had been formed under capitalism.
>
> A one time redistribution will not ch
I tried to make this point before, but I probably did not do it very well. Nove/Pareto
is to some extent correct. The conservatives/liberals speak of social capital; we
refer
to class as an important force in determining how someone fits into society. Remember
Newt suggesting that we give the
There are two sets of points here. One is the point that there are a
lot of indirect effects of inequality -- crime, higher death rates,
social mismanagement, environmental desctruction, tremendous waste.
But the other is that point is wrong to begin with. Just because you
can come up with argumen
