Equality

Anti-discrimination laws promote equality.
Taxation and responsible income transfers to the poorest segments of society can help keep inequality in check and reduce poverty in the short term. These appropriate when the benefits of growth fail to reach the poor.
Investing in opportunities for people especially the poor is essential, they should boost people’s ability to generate income, today and in the future.
Education and training as well as access to health care.
Social assistance is critical to prevent people from falling into poverty.
Some fights for equality, such as against racial prejudice, are morally straightforward. But the battle against economic iniquity isn’t so simple.
Equality and fairness seem like the same thing, but are subtly different.
For example, when grading student papers, teachers give better marks to better papers.
Likewise, if 2 partners co-run a bakery at which 1st partner work four equally productive days a week and 2nd partner work the other three, 1st partner would expect to receive four-sevenths of the profits.
A school that gave all students the same mark regardless of merit, or a bakery at which one work more than the other but are paid the same, would be equal, but not fair.
This is what we call “unfair equality”. The opposite of this, fair inequality, strikes most people as the better option.
When fairness and equality clash, people prefer fair inequality over unfair equality.
There are staggering levels of inequality in the world, and wide agreement that these should be reduced. But we should aspire to fair inequality, not unfair equality.

 

Just a note; between partners a "fair" division of profits is a matter of agreement and may be radically different than you suggest.

 

My idea in posting that was to demonstrate that economic fairness is really hard to judge.

 

Yes, for example, one partner may contribute much more experience, knowledge or financial backing at the beginning of the relationship.

 

The first half of Post # 1 doesn't look original. It looks very much like its source was this International Monetary Fund document:
The identical items appear, pretty much in the same order.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2018/03/bourguignon - was this the source?

 

And more of it appears verbatim here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731710-300-the-inequality-delusion-why-weve-got-the-wealth-gap-all-wrong/
The IMF article has been reprinted at other sources too. Almost the whole of post #1 appears to be yet another unattributed pastiche. I'm calling plagiarism. Student fails the entire Semester!

 

You're talking about Lerner's post at the top of page 2 (this page), Lerner and I have had this conversation a couple times. He does not consider it plagiarism.

 

Sorry - yes, post #21. Lerner and I have also discussed this kind of stuff before. I still consider it plagiarism. Because it IS! I'll dog him forever - I'm a danged little terrier that way. Grrrrr - gimme that pant-leg!

 

Indeed, I provided simplified example.
I think when I stated that partners work equally productive dates means they contrubute the same each day and equal partners or as we at tines state given all things equal.

As to other comments, everyone knows in our day and time it's so easy to copy paste and find identical or source texts.
So its not needed to take a genius terrier.
The message of the post is what important to me.
Especially if it contributes to the discussion.
Fairness is important there may not be 100% equality because someone ends up making profit and acomulates wealth but fair approach reduces inequality.

I will remeber to quote sources as I usually do.
Need to improve in thus area .

 

Well... ok. Maybe get some tinfoil for the pant-cuffs, though. Terriers HATE chewing that!

 

Why is it that in a pack of dogs the little yappy one always seems to be in charge?

 

The other dogs assume the little one can walk the walk AND talk the talk - and put THAT dog in charge. People (voters) sometimes do the same - ergo Ted Cruz. (I know what a fan you are!) And NO - we're not taking him back.

 

Puleeze?.

 

Regardless of what she's said or done, She is an American. As is the dude. Let's get them home https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/politics/griner-whelan-biden-offer-viktor-bout-exchange-russia-arms-dealer/index.html

 

Even if Putin offered me a free all expenses paid trip to Russia, I wouldn't go. No thank you. I don't want to be put in a Russian jail and be a putz Putin pawn.

 

.. or be a perished, polonium-poisoned Putin patsy either, no doubt.

 

If she broke the law, I have no problem with her being subject to its penalties. That said, those penalties do seem draconian.

I also have no trouble trading a couple of Russians we have imprisoned to return a couple of Americans, provided no serious national security issues are raised.

 

Given that opportunity, I would go in a heartbeat Primarily just hoping to do some randori with Vladimir Vladimirovich and some of his droogies. He is an honest to goodness Judoka. He was an IJF Ambassador until theIJF recently expelled him.

 

....and there Vlad goes! Right across the room and through the window! YAY CHARLES!!

 

That is to be expected. Ruling kremlin klan inherited a lot of their know how from Soviet regime, and these guys always managed to find hordes and hordes of "useful idiots". Not my expression - Lenin's. One difference is vlad the khuylo learned to attract right-wingers as well as the usual commies.