1:09:01 "Differences in wealth are not simply differences in the size of your house and so on. Differences in wealth are differences in the kinds of freedoms that you have. So a society dedicated to a notion of equal freedom has to take wealth inequality very seriously." 59:02 "Countries that are highly unequal devote a significant fraction of their labor force to what Arjun Jayadev from UMass and I call 'guard labor' - that is, the labor which is dedicated to essentially maintaining order. The United States devotes much more of our labor to that than do the more equal European societies. It's a waste." 1:12:15 "Inequality is actually vulnerable. *Even in America*, inequality is vulnerable when it gets to a very high level. Because there's just too many people who benefit even from poorly designed policies of redistribution - much less well-designed ones."
A brilliant presentation of a groundbreaking intellectual project. Like professor Gintis, however, I am not at all convinced by the "refrigerator story". Here is an alternative story that I find much more compelling. Think of three protohuman groups coexisting together. Members of the first group use lethal weapons to hunt and live a dispersed life without frequent interaction with each other. Members of the second group interact frequently with each other in close-knit social networks but do not use lethal weapons to hunt. Finally, members of the third group use lethal weapons to hunt and also interact frequently with each other in close-knit social networks. Which of these groups do you think would be best adapted to endure the Pleistocene? It is clear that the third group would have the greatest chances to survive and prosper if only their members could manage to solve the problem of living in a highly interdependent society of people who wield lethal weapons. The obvious benefits of both increased interdependence and lethal weapon hunting can be easily offset when people start to kill each other in episodes of intragroup conflict. The solution to this prehistoric dilemma was egalitarianism. Groups best able to survive and prosper were those that developed effective leveling mechanisms for empowering the majority and holding the overaggressive in check. At the same time, when political equality and the rule of majority prevail in a social system, widespread redistribution of material gains tends to arise spontaneously, as the many are bound to use their political power to keep inequality in check. Failure to do so would mean that asymmetric gains could be converted into asymmetric political power, thus compromising the system’s stability. So here is a short explanation of hunter-gatherer economic egalitarianism that has nothing to do with refrigerators. It is a story that allows for strong forms of economic inequality in hunter-gatherer societies just as well as strong forms of economic equality in agricultural societies, which is in line with the long-term historical evidence so aptly expounded by professor Bowles.
In mostly describing circumstances, not so much explaining them, human behavior is largely being ignored, which appears to be fairly egalitarian in its natural state; hierarchy and dominance appear to be emergent traits from circumstances like hoarding surpluses, and privatizing and commodifying natural resources. Bowles’ presentation was great if not too brief, Gintis’ (r.i.p.) work focuses more on human behavior, they are like modern day Marx and Engels but with better data and science.
Fantastic lecture. So all Bowles is saying is Transaction Costs. In a society where transaction costs of making goods (capital or consumption) excludable is high, those societies will be more equal, because it pays to allow others to use these goods, while if transaction costs of excludability is low then high inequality. Bowles mortal enemy Oliver Williamson strikes again.
1:09:01 "Differences in wealth are not simply differences in the size of your house and so on. Differences in wealth are differences in the kinds of freedoms that you have. So a society dedicated to a notion of equal freedom has to take wealth inequality very seriously."
59:02 "Countries that are highly unequal devote a significant fraction of their labor force to what Arjun Jayadev from UMass and I call 'guard labor' - that is, the labor which is dedicated to essentially maintaining order. The United States devotes much more of our labor to that than do the more equal European societies. It's a waste."
1:12:15 "Inequality is actually vulnerable. *Even in America*, inequality is vulnerable when it gets to a very high level. Because there's just too many people who benefit even from poorly designed policies of redistribution - much less well-designed ones."
A brilliant presentation of a groundbreaking intellectual project. Like professor Gintis, however, I am not at all convinced by the "refrigerator story". Here is an alternative story that I find much more compelling.
Think of three protohuman groups coexisting together. Members of the first group use lethal weapons to hunt and live a dispersed life without frequent interaction with each other. Members of the second group interact frequently with each other in close-knit social networks but do not use lethal weapons to hunt. Finally, members of the third group use lethal weapons to hunt and also interact frequently with each other in close-knit social networks. Which of these groups do you think would be best adapted to endure the Pleistocene?
It is clear that the third group would have the greatest chances to survive and prosper if only their members could manage to solve the problem of living in a highly interdependent society of people who wield lethal weapons. The obvious benefits of both increased interdependence and lethal weapon hunting can be easily offset when people start to kill each other in episodes of intragroup conflict.
The solution to this prehistoric dilemma was egalitarianism. Groups best able to survive and prosper were those that developed effective leveling mechanisms for empowering the majority and holding the overaggressive in check. At the same time, when political equality and the rule of majority prevail in a social system, widespread redistribution of material gains tends to arise spontaneously, as the many are bound to use their political power to keep inequality in check. Failure to do so would mean that asymmetric gains could be converted into asymmetric political power, thus compromising the system’s stability.
So here is a short explanation of hunter-gatherer economic egalitarianism that has nothing to do with refrigerators. It is a story that allows for strong forms of economic inequality in hunter-gatherer societies just as well as strong forms of economic equality in agricultural societies, which is in line with the long-term historical evidence so aptly expounded by professor Bowles.
If you listen to the questions at the end he essentially implies this perspective at around 1:17:00
In mostly describing circumstances, not so much explaining them, human behavior is largely being ignored, which appears to be fairly egalitarian in its natural state; hierarchy and dominance appear to be emergent traits from circumstances like hoarding surpluses, and privatizing and commodifying natural resources.
Bowles’ presentation was great if not too brief, Gintis’ (r.i.p.) work focuses more on human behavior, they are like modern day Marx and Engels but with better data and science.
Fantastic lecture.
So all Bowles is saying is Transaction Costs. In a society where transaction costs of making goods (capital or consumption) excludable is high, those societies will be more equal, because it pays to allow others to use these goods, while if transaction costs of excludability is low then high inequality.
Bowles mortal enemy Oliver Williamson strikes again.
Great presentation except for the coughing person in the background 😬😬