In my last Piketty post, I outlined Piketty’s arguments 2E and 2P, namely that patrimonial capitalism generates unjustified inequalities and that a global capital tax will contain those inequalities in a fair and efficient fashion in comparison to various alternatives. Reproduced:
2E. Unjust Inequalities: r > g and patrimonial capitalism generate inequalities of […]
I will address Piketty’s arguments that patrimonial capital generates unjust inequalities and that a global wealth tax can suitably reduce those inequalities in two parts. In this post, I’ll simply analyze Piketty’s defense of these arguments. In the next post, I’ll assess them.
In this post, I focus on Piketty’s arguments that patrimonial capitalism generates […]
Tyler Cowen, A libertarian case for expanding Medicaid.
I have next to no views about health care funding policy. I can tell you horror stories about Canada but I also know plenty of horror stories about the U.S., and I don’t believe that those two countries’ systems are useful synecdoches for “state” and “market” […]
In my last two posts, I explained Rawls’s idea of a property-owning democracy (POD) as elaborated by Thad Williamson and Martin O’Neill in much of their recent work, including this Boston Review piece. In this post, I argue that property-owning democracy is unworkable. I shall make two arguments to this effect:
In this post, following my previous post, I will review the Rawlsian arguments for property-owning democracy (POD) and comment a bit on their structure. In short, POD is required to realize Rawlsian principles because welfare-state capitalism (WSC) fails to properly disperse capital and provide worker control required to realize Rawls’s two principles of justice.