Neomarxismo

Riccardo Mariani

6 h · 

I due pilastri per un marxismo ragionevole nel ventunesimo secolo:

1) Il concetto di merito è pompato, la fortuna ha nelle vicende umane un ruolo maggiore di quanto siamo disposti a credere.

2) Il concetto di incentivo è pompato. Le motivazioni interiori hanno nelle vicende umane un ruolo maggiore di quanto siamo disposti a credere.

Cari marxisti, basta con il vetusto armamentario fatto di falsa coscienza, dialettica della storia, valore lavoro... Cerchiamo di rinnovarci un po'!

Il paradosso dell’abbondanza

Parlando di consumi, viviamo in un’epoca in cui l’eccellenza è a disposizione di tutti i comuni mortali. Alcuni esempi:

IPhone,

Kindle,

Libri,

Musica,

Giornali (informazione in generale),

Acqua minerale,

Rasoi,

Coca Cola,

Google, Facebook, Twitter…,

Bistecche, dolciumi e cibo (anche esotico) in generale,

Scuole,

Vaccini, antibiotici (e altri servizi sanitari),

Videogame,

Film,

Carta per scrivere e disegnare,

Sport,

eccetera (i contributi sono benvenuti).

La lista è talmente lunga che diventa più interessante porre la domanda complementare:c’è qualche bene di consumo che nella sostanza è disponibile solo ai super-ricchi?

A me viene in mente la casa.

Effettivamente la casa dei super-ricchi è di un altro pianeta.

In questo caso la differenza nei costi rispecchia unadifferenza sostanziale.

Cosa possiamo aggiungere?

Forse la sicurezza finanziaria?

Può darsi, anche se non sono del tutto convinto: non vedo molte persone normali precipitare nell’indigenza, se non in seguito a divorzi o depressioni.

E ricordiamoci che si tratta di eventi in grado dirovinare la vita anche al super-ricco.

Naturalmente ci sono poi tutte le problematiche legate allo status.

Ma lo status è apparenza più che sostanza, anche se non nego la sua centralità, specie per gli invidiosi.

Lo status però riguarda più la psicologia dei singoli che la diseguaglianza sociale: uno deve curare se stesso più che inveire contro l’altro.

I ricchi vivono in un mondo a parte?

Tyler Cowen is asked a good question: are there any goods someone on a median income can afford which are the very best of their kind? The answer, as Tyler shows, is plenty – including some important ones such as books and recorded music. To this we might add that even where the very best goods are unaffordable, the median income earner can afford pretty decent ones, such as cars, TVs and sound systems.

Which poses the question: if someone on a median income can afford such a luxurious cornucopia, what can’t he buy?

The obvious answer, in the UK, is a decent house. The average house costs over £208,000, equivalent to 7.5 times median annual earnings. Given that the bestschools tend to be in the most expensive areas, this means that our median earner can’t afford the best education for his kids either.

However, I suspect that most of the best things that the median income-earner can’t buy are non-material goods.

One is financial security. 49% of people, and most 35-44 year-olds live in households with less than £5000 of net financial wealth (pdf). They are only a pay cheque or two away from trouble.

Another is status. Our wages are related to our sense of worth – which is one reason why most people would prefer (pdf) a lower but above-average income to a higher but below-average one. A median income, by definition doesn’t provide much status.

You might reply that this problem would be solved if we could shake off envy. Not entirely. Status is one mechanism whereby income leads to political power:

Inequality against freedom By Chris Dillow

Inequality against freedom By Chris Dillow

• inequality is the enemy of freedom.
• He points out that Denmark –the sort of country Sanders wants the US to be more like – has greater economic freedom than the US.
• My chart plots a measure of income inequality (taken from the World Bank) against the Heritage Foundation ’s index of business freedom...There is a slight negative correlation between them, of 0.16.
• Inequality doesn’t just reduce freedom for workers . It reduces freedom for business owners too.
• Spiegazioni
• 1. countries that want to tax and redistribute must have a healthy economy, which requires business freedom.
• 2.  many of the rich have no interest in economic freedom.... This, I suspect, explains why inequality and unfreedom go together in Latin America,
• 3. people have a strong urge for fairness. If they cannot achieve this through market forces, they’ll demand it via the ballot box in the form of state regulation....there is a negative correlation between union density and minimum wages:
• We should, though, ask: what sort of egalitarian institutions and policies might increase freedom?
• For me, the answer is clear: those which increase workers’bargaining power.
• if workers have the power to bargain for better wages and conditions, and the real freedom to reject exploitative demands from bosses, then we’ll not need so much business regulation.

continua

I problemi della diseguaglianza

Tyler Cowen is asked a good question: are there any goods someone on a median income can afford which are the very best of their kind? The answer, as Tyler shows, is plenty – including some important ones such as books and recorded music. To this we might add that even where the very best goods are unaffordable, the median income earner can afford pretty decent ones, such as cars, TVs and sound systems.

Which poses the question: if someone on a median income can afford such a luxurious cornucopia, what can’t he buy?

The obvious answer, in the UK, is a decent house. The average house costs over £208,000, equivalent to 7.5 times median annual earnings. Given that the bestschools tend to be in the most expensive areas, this means that our median earner can’t afford the best education for his kids either.

However, I suspect that most of the best things that the median income-earner can’t buy are non-material goods.

One is financial security. 49% of people, and most 35-44 year-olds live in households with less than £5000 of net financial wealth (pdf). They are only a pay cheque or two away from trouble.

Another is status. Our wages are related to our sense of worth – which is one reason why most people would prefer (pdf) a lower but above-average income to a higher but below-average one. A median income, by definition doesn’t provide much status.

You might reply that this problem would be solved if we could shake off envy. Not entirely. Status is one mechanism whereby income leads to political power: