This is super interesting. Thanks Alexander. My preference is civility as well, so please forgive my preemptive armoring. I think we are at a paradigmatic impasse, as the (neo-classical?) models you are using I simply don’t use. For example, I find it useful to make a distinction between *use value* and *exchange value,* which is a distinction you might find disagreeable. I am also interested in the category of *objective value* — this is why I say that when Kim Kardashian makes more with a months worth of instagram posts than the best school teacher will make in her entire life, I think this is a problem akin to our society placing value on the wrong things (i.e., valuing something that is not really valuable). My sense is you might also think that kind of thing is a problem, but of a different kind? Indeed you speak of unnatural inequality, which sounds a lot like my idea of *extreme* inequality. Help me understand the difference please. Note my concern here is with the underpaid teacher, as it has been all along ;-) … Childishly… I am worried about my teachers still, who I guess don’t add value according to the models you are using? … Sincerely, I am asking how you would model this problem of underpaid, but highly skilled people in crucial social roles… I see that they consistently receive an economic signal that they are not of value to society, but I think that signal is simply an error that should be corrected… zak > On Oct 10, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Alexander Elung <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I don’t think you have mistaken me for someone else. I have been in a lot of discussions with Bard recently where personal attack became involved, but I never used them over arguments and I very rarely use them in general. I much prefer civil discussion – in this case however, you were the one who came swinging fists right out the gates. But I will try to be as civil as humanly possible. > - > > Income isn’t directly tied to skill nor should it be. Your income is tied to what value you are able to provide in the market. The value is determined by what people are willing to pay for what you are providing. What value you are able to provide is therefore indirectly tied to skill, but there are more factors connected to it than that. > > So we should in fact not expect skill and income to be directly correlated. You can be extremely skilful and not provide something which people are interested in or you have can have relatively low skill and provide something which a lot of people values very highly. This misunderstanding is your first problem. Unless you make a living off coercion, your income is based on how much value you are providing I.e what people are willing to pay you. Skills factor into that, but it’s not the only factor , since value is subjective. > > your argument that certain things are being over-evaluated is also a fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works. Value is subjective Zac – things are only worth the value they have in the market and value in the marketplace is determined by what people are willing to pay. > > Your second problem is that you think inequality is an accurate measure for societal problems. It’s not. Poverty, suffering, lack of dignity, exploitation and so on are actual markers which one can use to analyse if something is wrong in a society. Inequality is really a bad marker, since it doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not the difference is natural or not and whether or not it’s harmful. > > When harry potter makes billions of dollars that makes the income inequality very high compared to how much the average person makes, but it doesn’t reflect a problem. People inheriting money also does not reflect a problem at all. You seem to be very focused on people you think are “ too rich” instead of focusing on people who are suffering because of poverty – that is why I think this is subconsciously childish envy. > > Don’t get me wrong – there can be unnatural inequality. If you wanted to make an actual argument, you could argue that legal protectionism has created some unfair advantages for corporations which has led them to be able to hinder competition and therefore get larger market shares than they would in a free market – that is an actual problem. But inequality in itself isn’t and thus far you haven’t made a single argument as to why. > > I recommend that you read “economics in one lesson” by Hazlitt or “human action” by Mises. > > Best > Elung > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1