A rhetorical question... taking the Murray Rothbard Road in race relations... was... & remains a very important part of that shift away from economics understood as a policy science that attempts to implement a Benthamite or a Millian utilitiarianism that seeks the greatest good of the greatest number
"’I’m consistently shocked in my undergrad Econ classes how inequality of opportunity almost never comes up. In a world where everyone is perfectly rational, it seems like pretty big deal!"
The answer is pretty obvious. The economist undergrads consider themselves elites. It reminds me of when I was in Grammar school and the English class was reading "Brave New World". Did we see it as a dystopia? No, because we saw ourselves as Alphas, at worst Betas,, and life was good for Alphas. We certainly were never going to consider ourselves as "Deltas or Epsilons". That is why we are blind to such conditions. This blindness carries us to a range of other arenas, the food sources we eat, the countries we exploit, etc.
I think that is a misuse of "neo-Liberal." Neo-liberal does not exclude redistribution and garden variety liberals have historically distrusted trying to redistribute through price setting.
Andrew Carnegie believed that inheritance, and the resulting inequality of opportunity, was the worst thing ever -- this is why he supported public libraries and free education. But Carnegie was extremely competent.
Most rich people are incompetent, and know that given equality of opportunity, they would not be rich and might even be starving. We can convince some of them that a society where they had a "soft landing" would be better than the precariousness they live with now.
Others, however, are mentally broken and obsessed with greed -- they are not interested in a comfortable life, and they just want more, more, more, more -- they are power-hungry. The only option is to crush them; their attitude is a cancer for any society.
Or, as Upton Sinclair famously remarked, "It is difficult to get a man to understand a thing when his salary depends on him not understanding it."
"’I’m consistently shocked in my undergrad Econ classes how inequality of opportunity almost never comes up. In a world where everyone is perfectly rational, it seems like pretty big deal!"
The answer is pretty obvious. The economist undergrads consider themselves elites. It reminds me of when I was in Grammar school and the English class was reading "Brave New World". Did we see it as a dystopia? No, because we saw ourselves as Alphas, at worst Betas,, and life was good for Alphas. We certainly were never going to consider ourselves as "Deltas or Epsilons". That is why we are blind to such conditions. This blindness carries us to a range of other arenas, the food sources we eat, the countries we exploit, etc.
But isn’t this argument the basis for public education 150 - 200 years ago? If not this, then what would it have been.
The essential issue is everyone argues their book, ie we’re all selfish, but we have different priorities somewhat.
Arguing class polls better than arguing race. Arguing inequality of opportunity polls better than arguing inequality of outcome. But the
predominate then in ascendency is to argue race and outcome. Which is the best rich people could hope for.
I think that is a misuse of "neo-Liberal." Neo-liberal does not exclude redistribution and garden variety liberals have historically distrusted trying to redistribute through price setting.
Andrew Carnegie believed that inheritance, and the resulting inequality of opportunity, was the worst thing ever -- this is why he supported public libraries and free education. But Carnegie was extremely competent.
Most rich people are incompetent, and know that given equality of opportunity, they would not be rich and might even be starving. We can convince some of them that a society where they had a "soft landing" would be better than the precariousness they live with now.
Others, however, are mentally broken and obsessed with greed -- they are not interested in a comfortable life, and they just want more, more, more, more -- they are power-hungry. The only option is to crush them; their attitude is a cancer for any society.