multicultural literature

[Read] ➵ Unjust Deserts: How the Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance ➼ Gar Alperovitz – Betadvice.es

Unjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking OurNotRetrouvez Unjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance Et Des Millions De Livres En Stock SurAchetez Neuf Ou D OccasionUnjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking OurNotRetrouvez Unjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance And Why We Should Take It Back Paperback Common Et Des Millions De Livres EnUnjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking OurNotRetrouvez Unjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance Author Gar Alperovitz Novet Des Millions De Livres En Stock SurAchetez Neuf Ou D Occasion Unjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking Our Unjust Deserts Is A Stimulating Book The Authors Primary Conclusion Is That Most Of Us Do Not Deserve Our Incomes, Since The Vast Majority Of Our Income Is Determined Not By Our Own Contribution But By The Accumulated Technology, Know How, And Capital That We Ve Inherited From The Past The Authors Argue That Instead, Society Has A Claim To The Share Of Our Income That Comes From Our Accumulated Stock Of Unjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking Our Unjust Deserts Is An Elegant Work Of Moral Philosophy, A Reflection On Science, Technology, Cumulative Causation And The Collective Character Of The Common Wealth It Is Work With Deep Implications For Structures Of Pay, Ownership And Taxation, Perfectly Timed For The End Of The Grab What You Can Era James K Galbraith, UT Austin Unjust Deserts Prisonreformtrust Unjust Deserts Imprisonment For Public Protection Foreword Proportionality And Fairness Are, Or Should Be, Cornerstones Of The Justice System This Aptly Titled Report Unjust Deserts Gives A Salutary Account Of The Havoc Caused By A Pre Occupation With Risk And The Resulting Ill Thought Through Legislation The Indeterminate Sentence For Unjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking Our Unjust Deserts Is An Elegant Work Of Moral Philosophy, A Reflection On Science, Technology, Cumulative Causation And The Collective Character Of The Common Wealth It Is Work With Deep Implications For Structures Of Pay, Ownership And Taxation, Perfectly Timed For The End Of The Grab What You Can Era James K Galbraith, UT Austin Unjust Deserts How The Rich Are Taking Our Unjust Deserts This Book Offers Up A Valuable Potential Society Changing Idea Whose Time Has Come The Hard Part Is In Deciding Whether To Honor The Clear Facts And Heed The Logic That The Historical Facts And Philosophy Would Suggest The Facts Are That The Miracle Of Modern Engineering And Economic Advance Is Not All Modern, Though Some Of It Is Our Modern New Gadgets And Inventions Are Unjust Desserts Super Mario Wiki, The Mario Unjust Desserts Is The Eleventh Book In The Nintendo Adventure Books Series ContentsPlot SynopsisItemsCharactersEnemiesLocationsScore Chart Plot Synopsis The Story From The Back Cover Yoshi S Birthday Bash It S Yoshi S Birthday Party And Mario, Luigi, And All His Dinosaur Buddies Are There To Help Him Celebrate All Is Well Until Yoshi Slurps Down His Birthday


10 thoughts on “Unjust Deserts: How the Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance

  1. says:

    "Unjust Deserts" is a stimulating book. The authors' primary conclusion is that most of us do not deserve our incomes, since the vast majority of our income is determined not by our own contribution but by the accumulated technology, know-how, and capital that we've inherited from the past. The authors argue that instead, society has a claim to the share of our income that comes from our accumulated stock of technology, knowledge, and capital. While it raises important problems for us, I think its conclusions fall short.

    The first half of the book is a highly readable overview of modern growth theory and the new institutional economics with fascinating excursions into the the sociology of invention and recent developments in cognitive psychology. This work shows convincingly the overwhelming role of technology in improving our cognitive abilities, our organizational capabilities, and of course productive powers. The authors also convincingly rebut the "great man" theory of innovation and invention.

    The second half of the book turns to the concept of desert and explores the distinction between deserved and undeserved income through a historical perspective. The real inspiration for the authors is David Ricardo, whose concept of economic rent made precise the distinction between the income due to the inherent scarcity of some resource and income from contribution. The authors survey the development of Ricardo's concept of economic rent into the distinction between the social and individual contributions to economic performance. Because society's manifold contributions account for most of our income, we should consider the share of our income attributable to society as a kind of common property to be distributed by principles of social justice.

    Unfortunately, the book's argument gets confused here. Even if the authors successfully show that individuals do not deserve most of their income, nothing by itself follows from that conclusion about how this "manna from heaven" should be distributed. The authors are in a similar position to John Rawls, who famously argued that the principle of desert is not an appropriate basis for social justice. But as commentators on Rawls observed, nothing by itself follows from denying the principle of desert about what distribution is justified. Indeed, Rawls relies upon an egalitarian argument articulated in the difference principle and the idea of . The authors are sensitive to the challenge of providing further argument, and they suggest that the "empirical observation of the fact that the exercise of individual talents plays only a relatively small role in generating prosperity" might be such an argument for distributing income according to a principle other than desert (175). Unfortunately, an empirical observation by itself doesn't say /anything/ about what the distribution of income in a society /ought/ to be.

    In contrast, Rawls explicitly defends the principles of justice as fairness by reference to a constellation of ideas including a notion of fair terms of social cooperation, free and equal citizenship, and the original position. The authors express sympathy with Rawls' egalitarian conclusion, but they do not themselves endorse Rawls' defense for egalitarian justice.

    The importance of a clear defense of some distributive principle for the "social" residual contribution becomes clear when we consider some responses skeptics might make to the argument. For example, why shouldn't the empirical argument of this book support /greater/ inequalities, given that the efforts of people today will produce vast amounts of wealth for people in the future? Why not think of the future inheritance as an uncompensated positive externality of our current work? Another worry, assuming the principle of desert is correct, is that even if the very rich today do not deserve the whole of their income, why should those of us who do even /less/ than the very rich have a claim to redistribution? Desert in this way is non-comparative--the mere fact that someone else is less deserving doesn't make me more deserving.

    There is also a deeper worry about the framework of this book that involves the tension between inter-generational considerations of justice and justice for contemporaries. If the social residual is so great, isn't it /selfish/ to redistribute the proceeds of our inheritance among ourselves? The value of the social residual, in particular, will produce even more astounding achievements and well-being for future generations. Why is there some duty to distribute this inheritance to contemporaries rather than husband it to for the use of an indefinitely many future generations? How do we adjudicate between the interests of contemporaries and the interests of our successors? Does it even make sense to talk about the interests of future generations, given that they don't yet exist? The book hints at some deep problems here, but doesn't explicitly take them up.

    As someone interested in puzzles around intergenerational justice and the problems of distribution the knowledge economy creates, I found "Unjust Deserts" tremendously interesting if ultimately unsatisfying. I highly recommend it.


  2. says:

    I bought this book because my philosophy tends to lean in the direction indicated by the book (to the left), but I was disappointed because this book was just crappy. It read more like a Ph.D. thesis than a popular economics book. It drew on lots of philosophy, Locke, John Stuart Mill, etc... when frankly I don't care who said these same things (or different things) 200 years ago. I just want a coherent argument that applies now. Philosophy has a fetish with expanding on previous authors' work... as if those ideas were owned by those authors. As the central thesis of this book is that much of our wealth is inherited and belongs to us all, the same should be applied to philosophy. I don't care what John Stuart Mill said - just say it to me now and I will judge whether I believe it.

    This was meant to be a book of ideas, but it turned out to be a book of quotation marks. That is not to say that the content has been completely lost for me, but it certainly shouldn't have taken me 3 months to read it, and the message has been diluted over time.


  3. says:

    If you have ever wondered why we pay taxes, how high taxes really should be, or if the rich really are shouldering their fare share of taxes in our society, this book may have an answer that is far more satisfying than any glib partisan opinions or ideology. In a surprisingly readable tome the authors review some very interesting research and thought ranging from first principles and definitions of just desserts and entitlement through the changing nature of value creation in a knowledge economy. One notable thought experiment was to imagine Bill Gates alone and penniless on an island, without a society around him, would he be a billionaire in a year, in ten, or ever? If you are prepared to follow some carefully laid out logic explaining the concept of "economic rent", deserved vs. undeserved desserts, and the concept of taxes as how society is paid for enabling wealth creation, then this read might challenge everything you think you know about how society and wealth interact.


  4. says:

    I love this guy Gar Alperovitz. You can find his talks on Utube. He is creating an image for the future of our civilization. In this book he and Lew Daly explain in economic terms what Elizabeth Warren said a few years later, that if your business was a success, it was on the backs of all that had come before and all that was provided to make our country so conducive to entrepreneurship.

    This book takes some work and is not a fast or simple read. But it is clear. Maybe the hardest part is changing ideas that may be wedged into the back of our brains from childhood. Once you get it, it seems so obvious.


  5. says:

    Alperovitz is a communist in many respects, and his disdain for private property rights characterizes his works. However, in this book he manages to restrain his ideological leanings to make cogent and rational arguments against the abuses of intellectual property law. It is an effective book, one that manages to polemicize without going too far off of a logical narrative. The logical side of the book makes its ultimate points all the more damning. Like Naomi Klein, Alperovitz is capable of eviscerating his opponents and their positions to devastating effect with his gifts as a polemicist. Perhaps the best writing he's ever done, both stylistically and substantively.


  6. says:

    Proves way too much and way too little.

    If no one "deserves" anything because anyone's marginal input is zero, then why distribute things in any particular manner? This book does not confront any counterarguments.

    Moreover, it does not have a real flow of its own. Rather, the authors quote favored sources with approval to make roughly the same points over and over again in a rather short book.


  7. says:

    A bit over my head. The one concept the writers made that I understood...economic success comes from societies accumulated knowledge more than the action of any single person or company. Compensation however goes to individuals. Taxation is used to compensate society for their input. Interesting reading.


  8. says:

    A great book that lets you conceive the origin of the wealth of nations in a radial new way, as a collective inheritance in the form of natural resources and collectieve achievements like knowledge rather than summation individual work efforts.


  9. says:

    Guess who gave it the title...


  10. says:

    enoying this one and the implications for where the value is in business/economic relationships- implications for identifying value add and leverage points in business