« Push-pin vs poetry | Main | A liquidity trap? »

December 13, 2007



"For more plausible risk preferences - modest risk aversion - there's little in it."

Really? Aren't you better off 90% of the time in the second scenario. I think even mild risk seekers would prefer it.


And what does this have to do with the real world? Why does increasing equality of opportunity also increase inequality of outcome?


Reason - I've no reason to suppose it does. I constructed the example to pose the contrast between an inegalitarian society with equal opportunity vs a more equal one without equal opportunity. The point being to ask why one would prefer equality of opportunity to more equality of outcome.


Personally, I would choose equal opportunity with inequality in income simply because it gives everyone a fair shot at the prize. If you're one of those who got the higher income, then that means you've earned your way to it. If you're included in the lot who are at the bottom, that means you only have to try harder. My decision sounds a little too simple, I know. Still, I'm all for equal opportunity. If the situation were the reverse, what would those without the proper opportunity do?


However the example was cleverly crafted to confuse the issue. Most of the people who want equality of opportunity also want a public safety net, because the rich already have a private one.

Company Formation India

Of course the dumbest of rich people have access to those resources which the intelligent poor cannot even think of.

smally lerned

"If you're one of those who got the higher income, then that means you've earned your way to it."

That doesn't follow. A lottery might offer all contestants an equal shot at the prize, but that doesn't mean the winner "earned" it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad