tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post7001934037088191226..comments2024-03-28T03:24:05.678-04:00Comments on NAKED KEYNESIANISM: Inequality and mobilityMatias Vernengohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-30758365857508424682012-01-26T15:14:33.761-05:002012-01-26T15:14:33.761-05:00I suppose the discussion results from the fact tha...I suppose the discussion results from the fact that the founding myth about the US is that it is the land of opportunity. But alas, it is not.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595404115121834255.post-15291887855402335192012-01-24T01:15:06.923-05:002012-01-24T01:15:06.923-05:00If one thinks about this, what is astounding is th...If one thinks about this, what is astounding is that there is much discussion about this fact.<br /><br />After all, income inequality within one generation, means that some parents should not be able to provide their kids with the best support; therefore, those kids (i.e. the following generation) must it harder to move up the income scale later on in life.<br /><br />The opposite with wealthier parents: they should be able to provide their kids with a better support level. Those kids should have an easier time later on.<br /><br />This is just simple common sense, and, I may be mistaken, but it seems obvious and reasonable to me.<br /><br />What is not common sense (therefore, not necessarily obvious and requiring further elaboration) is the alternative supposition that large income/wealth inequality in one generation needs not be accompanied by large income/wealth inequality in following generations. How does this work?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.com