Change my mind

Hi All

First, thanks for coming this far.

So, what I want to do is try to disprove something I've believed all my life.  I'm doing this because people whose opinions I respect think that I might be wrong.  Because not everything you learn as a child is true - and even those things that are sometimes might as well be wrong.

The belief is simple - that it is almost always better to increase the size of the overall economy than change the way it's distributed.  Or, as I met the idea as a 10 year old, "Why argue about who gets the biggest bit of pie.  Make a bigger pie!".  In very modern terms (which is the definition I'll be using here) the belief is "Economic growth is more important than reducing inequality, under standard western conditions".

The process which I would like your help with is two(ish) steps long.  First, I want to identify the things that would prove that this belief is wrong *to me* - and then gather evidence. An example of the process:

"We have reached the limit of growth".  If more growth isn't possible, then more growth can't be more important.  Strong evidence against: UK average growth over xx years is 2%.  Therefore this statement is provably false.

I've come up with a number of these already, some completely trivial, others not.  Even a couple which I'm really not sure about, left in for completeness and potential debate.

The help I'm looking for at this stage is both "More ways that would falsify the theory" and "Evidence that supports previously accepted ways to falsify the theory".

An important point though - while I might not agree with what people say, every contribution will be read and considered.  Nothing will be just dismissed, except as outlined below.  While I might not agree with you your comments will be respected.  Evidence however will be carefully considered, but if this bogs down into a significant literature review this process will be reconsidered - I don't have time to do an undergrad in Sociology to help me reconsider my political views.  The election is this year, not next.

Further, I would ask everyone to comment (and read) in the spirit of reasonableness.  We may disagree about things but this is no reason to be angry or annoyed.  If a comment persuades you of something, say that.  Thank them for it.  This entire exercise is to try to change my mind - but I'd ask that you accept that it might change yours as well.

Also note that everything will be looked at with sane eyes and rebutted as needed.  For example, "Economic growth has killed our children's childhoods" will be rebutted by "Yes, but infant mortality has dropped significantly; less childhood is lost by death in childhood".  This could of course be rebutted by some argument on the sexualisation of children and the degraded quality of childhood.  At this point I would mark the point as "Insufficiently clear cut without a degree in Childhood studies; this debate is not on the relative quality of childhood.   On hold pending further evidence." The point here is not to argue one point into the ground, but to establish clear cut statements.  If it boils down to "You can argue it either way in the end, and we don't actually know", this is a perfectly acceptable. 

There are some quibbles further below, for the interested.  Short version: no misleading stats, no spirit level.

Now there are some of you out there (Alan, I'm looking at you) who will be muttering that you don't have to choose between economic growth and reducing inequlity.  I have a couple of answers; 3 really.  First, "If you chase two rabbits you will lose both".  Second, this is a matter of priority, not an absolute zero sum game.  Third, the people who are usually able to make decisions of Growth vs Inequality are politicians - and I don't trust them to get one thing right at a time; let alone two.

So, the Falsifiable statements I already have:

Trivial to dismiss, but included for completeness

1) We have reached the end of growth
2) External costs of growth have significant externality costs that exceed the value of growth
3) Rate of growth so slow that other options are significantly more important/significant
4) Universal acceptance of the need to resolve inequality
5) Economic growth can't be significantly influenced.

Less trivial

1) The cost of redistribution to further reduce inequality is less than zero
2) That current inequality is provably Unfair.*
3) Inequality has significant, clear external costs.

Iffy - might apply, maybe.

1) There is no way to escape poverty, at the level of an individual lifetime for a functional,  non-handicapped individual.
2) The rate of growth of inequality is greater than the growth of the economy, including the effects of technological development - and that this matters.

So, people.  How else could you prove this theory wrong?  What strong evidence can you think of?


Quibbles

When it comes to trying to prove/disprove the statements there are going to be a number of quibbles.  While I'm not going to spell out all the quibbles (because that would take forever!) they could all (bar one) be described as "Be reasonable".  If something is true, but has only been true for one year, that isn't enough.  Obvious misuse of statistics is Bad.  Showing that a thing is un/true during an unusual economic period isn't proof, be it WW2, the 2008 recession or the Napoleonic wars.  You get the idea.

Where I will be unfair is the book "The Spirit Level".  I have great problems with this book.  The short version is - where I have specific knowledge of the subject matter it seems to fall apart.  For example, take Japan, one of the countries with very long lifespans and an apparently "equal" society.  The book doesn't address the severe inequalities in the country.  The huge social gulf between Men and Women.  The xenophobia foreigners experience.  If Inequality influences longevity, surely being treated as a non-person would??  What of Japanese pension fraud?  Anyway, every time I look at it the numbers seem to get worse.  So this particular book is not going to be considered evidence here.

*Note that the "Unfair" statement has significant additional restrictions.  Including but not limited to "Universally accepted as unfair" and "Unfair to all - living, dead and yet to be born".  Fair is a concept I have significant problems with, once it's passed out the realm of fair cake distribution.  Is it fair to Bob if Alice earns more than him?  Would the inequality be fair if Alice's father funded her time at university?  Would it be more or less fair if it was a scholarship?  How does talent/ability/disability effect matters?  As I said, fair is *hard* for me - it's a rabbit hole that is easy to fall down endlessly.