Off List Re: Marxism At Yale

[Ken Hanly]

That is not what Pareto Optimality is at all. Pareto Optimality is a state
of affairs where no further "trades" would make anyone better off WITHOUT
MAKING SOMEONE WORSE OFF. I am not sure that Rawls redistribution is
necessarily contradictory to the principle since the better off may in
actuality receive compensations i.e  less civil unrest, a healthier
workforce etc from redistribution. People cannot be expected to keep their
part of a "social contract" if there is not a certain minimum granted to
them. And of course Rawls justifies a considerable amount of unequal
division of power income etc. on the grounds that everyone is made better of
by such inequalities and no one worse off.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Off List Re: Marxism At Yale


>
>
>
> >
> >
> >By the way, one of my econo-trained-monkey-MBA dear close friends sent me
a
> >response that Rawls sounded to him like "Pareto optimality" (whatever the
> >hell that is -- I've heard it used).
> >
>
> No no no no. Pareto optimality is a state of affairs in which no
> transactions or transfers of utility can make anyone better off. It is a
> measure of efficiency compatible with gross injustice by Rawls' standards
> (or anyone's). Rawls want to ensure that the _least well off_  group is as
> well off as as it can be. If that means dispossessing the better off
groups
> by a  great deal, he's cool with that. In fact he think it is required.
And
> such a result is decidedly NOT pareto optimal.
>
> jks
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>