February 4, 2012

Category » Politics

ECONOMIC JUSTICE

This column on economic “justice” by Walter Williams, written in 1998, should be required reading in every high school in Amerca. (And in the White House.)

My favorite part:

Despite the broad acceptance of outcomes as measures of justice and fairness by the public, courts, and politicians, we must ask whether outcomes can provide us with any meaningful clues about fairness or justice. Let us examine this issue using a simplified construct—the game of poker. The specific question we ask is: can we tell whether a poker game is fair by having information only about the game’s outcome? Suppose we know that Harry, John, and Mary play poker regularly. Harry wins 75 per cent of the time while John and Mary win 15 and 10 per cent of the time respectively.

Knowing only this outcome of the game, we ask: is the game fair? The evidence before us is that Harry has 75 per cent of the winnings distribution while John and Mary share the balance. Was the game fair? Was there “poker justice”? Would an equal distribution (33.3 each) be fairer? What is the standard for judging what outcome is fair, just, or equitable?

It is clear that determining a standard for a fair distribution of winnings would be quite elusive if not impossible. The only way we can have any hope of ascertaining the fairness of the game is to examine instead the process of the game. In an examination of process, we would ask such questions as: (1) was participation in the game voluntary or not, (2) were there neutral rules, and (3) did every player play by those rules?

Harry’s winning 75 per cent of the time is no indicator of the game’s fairness. Harry might be an astute player or his high winnings could be the result of cheating. Similarly, if the winnings distribution had been 33 per cent each, we still would not know whether the game was fair. John and Mary might be just as good players as Harry, or they might have joined to extort part of Harry’s winnings in the name of equality, or John and Mary could be cheating. Information on the distribution of winnings allows us to make no unambiguous statements about the fairness of the game.

The rules of any game seek to establish and restrain the nature of the relationships among the participants, Among the rules of poker: you cannot look at your opponent’s cards; cards must be dealt from the top of the deck; a full house beats a pair; and so on. In basketball, football, baseball, and other sports, there are agreed- upon rules governing the conduct of the game. In some games, there are referees to insure that participants play by the rules and to assess penalties on those who violate the rules.

We should carefully note that the purpose of the rules of the game is not that of determining the winner of the game. Similarly the role of the referee is not that of choosing game winners; nor is it his role to be a member of either team. His role is simply that of an impartial observer enforcing neutral game rules. Were referees to play the game, or if the game rules ex ante determined the winner, there would be common agreement that the game was not fair.


 

FacebookShare

12 comments

ROMNEY PAYS MORE IN TAXES THAN “THE 97%”

You’ve heard of the 99%.

How about the 97% who pay less in taxes than Mitt Romney?

Class envy is really, really unproductive and stupid.

FacebookShare

55 comments

NEWT IS TOAST (UPDATE**************UPDATE)

Say goodbye to Newt Gingrich and hello to President Mitt Romney.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-gingrich-lacks-moral-character-president-wife/story?id=15392899#.Txg7lW_OXJc

 

“In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,’” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”

******************************************UPDATE**********************UPDATE*************UPDATE**********

OK. Maybe Newt’s not toast. He didn’t just win South Carolina. He won about 95% of the state, including evangelical country where Huckabee beat McCain in 2008.

It’s obvious that conservatives — including the religious right — are pissed off enough and scared enough of another Obama term that they are willing to disregard the relatively meaningless personal stuff.

They loved Newt calling out the media and they want someone who’s not going to be afraid to go after Obama hard –the way Sarah Palin wanted to in 2008.

The Republican turnout this time is going to be astronomical.

One more reason why Obama is still toast.

 

 

 

 

FacebookShare

196 comments

COSTA CONCORDIA : “EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF”

I’ve always wanted to ask a radical feminist if that equality stuff applied to lifeboats.

Have they been in  favor of an “every person for him or herself” policy?

Unfortunately, the chance to answer that question was presented when the Costa Concordoia  ran aground off the coast of Italy.

“Also speaking to the newspaper, Fabio Costa, a crewmate, said: ‘We were giving priority to kids and women and trying to leave the men until last, but they were not accepting it because it was their families.”

Is that OK now —not as it applies to kids, obviously — but as it applies to women?

Just wondering.

It will be interesting to hear if the men are villified –as they should be — if they did fight women for spots on the lifeboats. I’m not talking about the women who believe in equal rights for women.

I’m talking about the ones who are offended when you open a door for them.

FacebookShare

11 comments

HEAD START – ONE MORE BIG GOVERNMENT WASTE

Who could be mean enough to not want to spend money on poor children to help them get a head start on education?

I’m sure you’ve heard of Head Start. Look what liberal writer Joe Klein is saying about it in Time Magazine.

“We spend more than $7 billion providing Head Start to nearly 1 million children each year. And finally there is indisputable evidence about the program’s effectiveness, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not work.”

Ahh, what’s $7 billion?

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/01/12/head-start-a-50-year-flop-say-it-aint-so-joe/

FacebookShare

65 comments

WOULD ROMNEY FIRE THESE PEOPLE?

Ann Coulter on Romney saying he likes being able to fire people --a line that will set a world record for being taken out of context if he is the Republican nominee.

It’s not bad enough that there are people out there who want the government to be in charge of our health care. Those same people would make it impossible for your health workers to be fired.

FacebookShare

66 comments

AFRAID OF A SECOND OBAMA TERM

If Barack Obama wins a second term, he will have done it against what used to be insurmountable odds.\

The economic numbers are in the toilet and his approval number is in the 40′s.

Then there is this: By a 2-1 margin, Americans’ biggest fear is a second term for Obama.

Toast.

FacebookShare

188 comments