Comments on: So, what does ‘progressive fusionism’ look like?

By: Club Troppo » Have the Tories embraced ‘progressive fusionism’?

Club Troppo » Have the Tories embraced ‘progressive fusionism’? — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:27:53 +0000

[...] insisted that these could only be achieved by conservative means. This sounds a lot like the ‘progressive fusionism‘ promoted by the Cato Institute’s Brink Lindsey. In a 2006 essay for the New Republic, [...]

By: Club Troppo » How much is enough?

Club Troppo » How much is enough? — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:11:49 +0000

[...] consequence whether some had more than others", says Harry Frankfurt. Skepticlawyer agrees. In a recent post on ‘progressive fusionism’ she suggests combining Frankfurt’s ‘doctrine of sufficiency’ with Amartya [...]

By: Club Troppo » Where Missing Link leads…

Club Troppo » Where Missing Link leads… — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:05:38 +0000

[...] any case, we’ve kicked off skepticlawyer.com with – among other things – my response to Don Arthur’s thoughtful posts on inequality and ‘progressive fusionism’. [...]

By: NPOV

NPOV — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:27:05 +0000

As for “economics is not a zero sum game” – of course, I don’t think anyone seriously believes it is (otherwise society as a whole would be no better off than it was 200 years ago).
As for making money at the expense of others – I’d argue there are companies where the employees are responsible for creating, say, 50% of the wealth of a company, and employers the other 50% – but the proceeds aren’t split up that way: the employees might get 40% to share between them and the employers 60%. In such cases you could argue that the employers are making money at the expense of the employees. Obviously then the difficulty is how one determines what percentage of the wealth is actually created by the employees vs the employers – and I’m not sure I accept that leaving this decision entirely in the hands of the employers is always justifiable.

By: NPOV

NPOV — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:12:17 +0000

Terje, sure, I’m not suggesting that Australia is anywhere near the point that there are individuals or groups of individuals with incomes comparable to that of the government. I’m just pointing out that it would be highly dangerous to let it happen.

By: TerjeP

TerjeP — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:10:12 +0000

p.s. When you get richer it is rarely at the expense of somebody else. Economics is not a zero sum game.

By: TerjeP

TerjeP — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:09:21 +0000

NPOV – take a look at the annual revenue of the Australian federal government and then name one individual in the world that has an annual income that large? Even if you look at income collectives of the upper tier of society you are still talking about a very large mass of people (and a significant percentage) before they can rival the government. And typically they have very little interest in forming some political conspiracy. More likely they are expounding their feelings of guilt on blogs.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:45:39 +0000

Many thanks for your very thoughtful input all – I’m going to take some time to take some cool DC pics just now (since I’m here) to put up on the site, and I’ll respond properly this evening (DC time).

By: “Progressive fusionism” « Sachi’s hyperbolic space

“Progressive fusionism” « Sachi’s hyperbolic space — Fri, 09 May 2008 07:35:19 +0000

[...] She writes: The idea that libertarians and ‘progressives’ could hammer out some of their differences and reach a compromise far more workable than that between conservatives and libertarians is an interesting one. [...]

By: NPOV

NPOV — Fri, 09 May 2008 02:45:07 +0000

backroom girl, your “how could I quibble” question sounds fair enough to me (with one caveat: we can’t allow a section of the population to gather so much wealth that it becomes more powerful than the government. Government has checks and balances to prevent abuse of power, corporations and other associations don’t). So it comes down to how much you believe that existing inequalities are down to free choice. My suspicion is “not all that much”. Basically, modern technology hugely amplifies the wealth-creation abilities of those who happen to have particular talents and/or grow up in privileged environments. I include myself here – I happen to have a brain that’s well-geared towards manipulating technology to achieve a level of productivity that the market values highly, and I was brought up in an environment that encouraged me to pursue that path. Consequently I’ve never really had to take any risks, or work long hours, or under high stress levels. Is it fair then that I should be in the top 2-3% of all earners?