--- Jacob W Braestrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "My point with the example is this: when there are so many things in life that are blatantly "unfairly" (if you believe in equality) distributed among us, [1]why this preoccupation with wealth / income - [2]especially when it is conceeded that effeorts to redistribute existing income / wealth will inevitably reduce future income / wealth."
1: My guess: Because wealth & income are relatively easy to measure objectively, as opposed to "mate satisfaction." So it is an easy proxy. It seems to be a fairly good one, too, since money is a numeraire good. 2: Does the logic/math of the 2nd Fund. Welfare Thm. imply that lump-sum redistribution, so that a more "favorable" market outcome obtains, necessarily lowers output? Optimization is still a calculus problem after all. -jsh __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
