You're quite right that they used income distriubution for Sweden (even in that relatively egalitarian country, wealth disparity is still very significant). But I don't think this necessarily makes the study flawed, since it was about gauging people's preferences for wealth distribution...
I’m not sure that’s what he said.
In his 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, he said “We…also introduce another postulate, …, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body”...
I wouldn't worry - it's not at all obvious. We're first educated in Newtonian mechanics etc. And, to many, that is amenable to an intuitive grasp - a bullet leaving the barrel of a moving gun has a different speed to one fired from a stationary gun, with the difference being the speed of the gun...
The argument has been made many times that socialism is about equlity of misery. I don't accept the argument. Even within capitalist systems there are examples where a) wealth inequality is less than in the UK and the US and b) overall wealth is comparable - even greater. Norway and Sweden, for...
I think the idea of private-sector as wealth creators and public-sector as wealth consumers is a false dichotomy. On the face of it, the only contributer to GDP would be manufactured goods or services delivered by the private sector. Farmers might think they were the ultimate contributor to...
On the contrary, ‘meritocracy’ was precisely the word I meant.
Actually, the low expectations many poor people have about themselves is indeed a genuine issue. But it’s not the main cause of inequality. An interesting question would be: why are they so fatalistic?
Each human is different...
I’d agree if by a liberal democratic government you mean one that doesn’t allow inequality of opportunity take hold.
I don’t think we can reach agreement agree here.
But actually, spent well, it can kick-start an economy back into a healthy mode. In the UK the problem was that the government...
Poorer quality education, low-quality housing, more likely to be the victim of crime - particularly violence, poor general health, die younger, higher rates of depression and suicide, unable to afford the healthcare that the more affluent can, having to hold down two or more crappy jobs to earn...
But surely it is a matter of degree. I understand fully the abhorrence felt towards denying a person the right to utilize the fruits of their labour. But all reasonable and intelligent people recognise the necessity of denying an individual of some of their money for the greater good.
There...
Yes, I agree that absolute equality of opportunity is unlikely ever to be achieved. Human nature will see to that. In all societies the powerful will do their damndest to ensure they stay ahead of the game.
But while it is, of course, inarguable that absolute standards of living have improved...
If the prizes on offer were unlimited, this might conceivably be possible. But they’re not. For example, top universities are limited in the number of places they offer – therefore if rich kids have elbowed their way in then this clearly presents a barrier to poor kids.
Are you seriously...
Everybody would have their own idea. How do you define it? In a general way, I'd like to think kids born to poorer families had exactly the same chance as the rich kids to get a top job, live in a great house, live beyond the age of 70 etc. But the fact is that they don't have the same chance...
Not quite, actually. I can't imagine any parent not wanting to give their children every possible advantage.
I'm really trying to say that capitalism often gets an uncritical round of applause, especially when mentioned in the same sentence as communism. As has been pointed out in this...