Inequality question
‘‘Inequality’’ was a topic of letters two days in succession. Is economic inequality becoming an angst of unhealthy proportions? Causes and culprits of inequality loom large in people’s minds and solutions are offered.
It seems many people, some notable, are swept up in grim rhetoric and see inequality as a sign that modernity has failed to improve the human condition. Is that so? Cooler heads who studied ‘‘inequality’’ are numerous and their writings will surprise many. Steven Pinker, in his 2018 book
collates and intelligently discusses pertinent information and gives context to inequality in the handy chapter ‘‘Inequality’’. Yes, some phenomena falling under the inequality rubric are serious and must be addressed.
Do we want to go back to a state of original equality, when there is no wealth so everyone has equal shares of nothing? For thoughts, Pinker quotes economic historian Walter Scheidel (2017): the four ways of economic levelling are mass mobilisation warfare, transformative revolution, state collapse and lethal pandemic.
What makes discussing ‘‘inequality’’ such a challenge is the conflation of inequality with unfairness, the confusion of inequality with poverty, and
People should pay for their quarantine stay in hotels. They would otherwise be buying groceries and/or paying rent so some contribution is only fair. Christine McNamara, Te Aro
Following on from Jim Sharp’s lament for the word ‘‘many’’ (To the Point, July 11), hello to those who wouldn’t dream of saying ‘‘Us enjoy do-it-yourself projects’’ but do say ‘‘Us Kiwis enjoy . . .’’, or who say ‘‘Me and Mum went to town’’ but probably not ‘‘Me went to town’’. It would take a whole column to register every turn of phrase that makes us want to scream – or sob for the passing of clear and logical expression. Jenny Chisholm, Wilton
Is it true that a homeless man was seen trying to sneak into the National Party meeting seeking leadership of the party.
Don McKay, Petone
Re the benevolent multimillionaires who want to be taxed more – really! They would contribute more money to our economy so it could be ‘‘mismanaged’’ the way it is now? Why don’t they just pick a project or two between them and provide that, following it all the way through? They didn’t make their fortunes and succeed by being part of the political system.
Carole Naylor, Papakowhai
We can’t explore our back yard with exorbitant ferry costs. Vince Scully, Picton