In place of capitalism, she talks of a system of ‘market-tested innovation and supply’:
You have to ask what the source of the inequality is.
If the source is stealing from poor people, I’m against it.
But if the source is, you got there first with an innovation that everyone wants to buy, so you get paid some crazy sum, you ought to be paid so much, don’t you think?
There is noting to be gained by focusing on inequality.
McCloskey’s characteristically extravagant self-description:
She asks that compared to all the envy driven policies, what has helped the poor more than increasing the size of pie?
McCloskey argued that:
- Equality is not an ethically sensible purpose.
- Changes in inequality was made an issue by the intellectuals, not by the working class.
- Absolute poverty is what matters and can be solved.
- Inequality is a fool’s errand.
- Who are you going to trust to fix a problem is the key?
- You must look at the actual ability of government to do various things.
- predicting the future of human affairs is a deeply foolish project.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Jul 15, 2015 @ 08:36:31
Reblogged this on Situation Nominal.
LikeLike
Jul 15, 2015 @ 14:12:38
Poverty is built-into the social hierarchy; the social hierarchy does not allow equality. The wealthy cannot be rich and powerful if no one is poor.
LikeLike