EM Winter 2013

Read for Friday  Chapter  Cases Eminent Domain Battling Over Bottled Water  Articles Isbister: Income distribution Maxwell: The Mission of Business  Have read this earlier.

ch 3 text Your thoughts?

$9,132$11,034 Income Distribution

Income Distribution 5 10 In 1990 top 10% -earned 7.5 times more than bottom 10% Canada In earned 8.7 times more

Income Distribution Canada US

Income Distribution US Canada

US Canada UK Germany Sweden Income Distribution “Gini index”

Income Distribution incomewealth Isbister

Income Distribution ? inequality promotes efficiency  Is any compromise away from equality justified?  Is any constraint on efficiency justified?

Income Distribution ? inequality promotes efficiency get an education work hard hierarchy 2 x 2 x 2 efficiency ? = ? wealth production

Income Distribution ? efficiency = wealth production

Income Distribution & Justice Ask yourselves  Is this fair? Is freedom a sub-value of justice/fairness?  Why?  How did it get this way?  Should we change it? How? Would any of your answers be different if you weren’t a Christian?

ch 3 cases Bottled Water  whose water is it? “There’s no difference between Perrier bottling water, Gerber making baby food, or Miller brewing beer.”

The Nature of Justice  fairness  equality  deserts  rights

The Nature of Justice distributive justice  proper distribution of social benefits burdens

The Nature of Justice some distributive justice options  to each an equal share according to  individual need  personal effort  social contribution as a free market allows as fortune determines

Distributive Justice 3 secular ideas  Utilitarian whatever will maximize happiness  Libertarian whatever will maximize freedom  Rawlsian whatever reasonable people would agree to

Distributive Justice Utilitarian whatever will maximize happiness  ownership  workplace authority  government role  incentives  safety nets Mill

Distributive Justice Utilitarian  greater equality of income declining marginal utility of wealth inheritance

Distributive Justice Libertarian  liberty = non-interference Nozick

Distributive Justice Libertarian  premise of rights negative natural “Lockean” entitlement “theory”  property  goods  money

Distributive Justice how is the market “just”?  Utilitarian  Libertarian

Rawls “the original position” “the veil of ignorance”  familiar & fundamental liberties  inequalities justified if benefit worst off conservative non-utilitiarian  maximum position »minimize maximum regret

Rawls 1.all have equal basic rights maximize what all could have “primary social goods” »income »wealth »rights »liberties »opportunities »status »self-respect

Rawls 1.all have equal basic rights maximize what all could have “primary social goods” 2.inequalities OK if attached to positions open to all benefit the least advantaged

Rawls Can this apply in marketplace discussions?

Haslet inheritance  is inheritance “right”?

Haslet capitalism  what’s produced  market price  private property  production “enticed” people’s “dollar votes” “to each according to their productivity”

Haslet wealth maximization  equal opportunity benefit for people doing “ordinary work”  maximum feasible benefit for effort  free choice

Haslet rights to  benefits of our own productivity  use them freely  transfer them freely

Case Merck & Co  what arguments are made? classify them  what is medicine? intellectual property? public good? right? What attempts are made to resolve the moral dilemma?