We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

See Pricing

What's Your Topic?

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

What's Your Deadline?

Choose 3 Hours or More.
Back
2/4 steps

How Many Pages?

Back
3/4 steps

Sign Up and See Pricing

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Back
Get Offer

Economic Inequality

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

Deadline:2 days left
"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

The focal point of this paper is to summarize the article by Clive Crook titled Read the article by Titles The Height of Inequality and write 5 page paper in which you do the following: and write John Locke`s and John Rawl`s approach to this issue. Then a position would be taken on this issue determining the most favorable author. The article begins with a parade scene from Dutch economist Jan Pen’s book named Income Distribution published in1971. This parade is arranged in size in accordance to the income difference of the total mass of Britain.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Economic Inequality
Just from $13,9/Page
Get custom paper

Here the first lot is made up with people who are loss makers followed by elderly people and youth, part time workers and soon they are followed by unskilled labors, clerical workers and shop. Up till this point the size is miniature. The size increases with “trades people, skilled labors and office staffs. But the last 10 percent comprises of gigantic population comprising of civil servants, lawyers and doctors and stockbrokers, bankers and corporate executives followed by bigger giants like entrepreneurs, movie stars and pop stars.

Thus a total distribution or inequality of British economics is defined. Next Crook mentions Garrison Keillor who stated that the average income group yields a less than average future. In American economy it has been found that over the last four decades the income section of the middle income group has raised by 11 percent but on the other hand it was found that within that same time period the top level income ascended to 617 percent. It is determined that this rise is mainly due to the increase of share of the top income groups over that of the labors share.

It has been estimated that the best of the national income growth is continuously been curved away by the top order and thus a fair share of the increased production is taken away from the labors. At the same point it also discussed in the article that this phenomenon was not prevailing in historical sense. For this purpose the income structure of post Second World War is incorporated where we find that the rise of income in the middle level also developed at par the income of the top level.

Alongside it is seen that workers in rich countries are getting paid more than that of the workers of the poorer countries even though the nature of the work is basically the same. However, the more recent the history, i. e. 1990 or 2000, it is found the rise of the top order is more rapid and thus creating economic inequality among the population. Thus it is conclusive enough that the gain of production is going to the handful employers and not penetrates the lower group. The study of Sherwin Rosen’s superstar theory published in 1981 is taken into consideration to determine the nature of modern economics and the span of modern economics.

Thus the attitudes of the CEOs are dealt and the opportunities and the parameters of this group are analyzed to formulate a theory that can explain the paradox of inequality of economics within the population. It is suggested that a line should be drawn between the top officials and the availability of resources and the opportunity to use the resource at the limit. More importantly it is needed to ascertain the limit and understand that there is a margin within which the income resources should be kept else it is certain that the lower income group would surely revolt at a point of time. Crook, 2006, 1-2) Crooks point of view is extremely clear in this article. According to him that the society is deem to become unstable if there are inequalities of income in the society. He provides ample data and statistics to prove the inequalities of the economic society. He even goes to the extent of being the measures of a satirist to mention the parade imagery. Crook is quite anxious that if the inequality goes on beyond the parameters of the sustainability of the lower income groups it is sure to yield political turmoil in terms of ultimate fiscal disaster.

John Locke`s approach to this issue of economic inequality is based on the contradiction of values of his time and economic methods available in his era (1632 – 1704). He “was directed against the principles of Sir Robert Filmer, whose books, asserting the divine authority of kings and denying any right of resistance, were thought by Locke and his fellow Whigs to be too influential among the gentry to be left unchallenged by those who held that resistance to an arbitrary monarch might be justified. (Locke, 1993, viii) Thus it is certain that John Locke believed in the human rights if man and that man should be paid his dues whereby there should be equalities in terms of economy in the society. John Locke’s approach to finance and economy is in this way very modern in nature and reading his text Second Treatise of Government yields a romantic approach towards different economic consequences. This is basically because he was more of a political philosopher than an economist.

Thus a philosophical justification comes forward with his view of forceful equality. An ardent empiricist by nature John Locke is always in favor of revolution. He conveys every opportunity to practice this approach and he feels that economic equality is possible only by revolution. In a way John Locke is at par with Crook but Crook’s approach is more fiscal oriented and data base where as Locke’s outlook is more assumption based and romance is added to it enthusiastically.

His views were based on the faith that human nature is the best judge of identifying right and wrong and that it is obvious that the population would determine correctly what is ultimately right and economic inequality would eradicated in the process. John Rawls’ view on the issue of economic inequality is mostly based on the theory of justice where he indicated the two basic principals that are accommodated in the basic Justice as Fairness that is formulated on methodical and logical approach towards human rights. According to John Rawls economic inequality is “injustice” (Rawls, 65).

To defend the views the author incorporates the two basic principals where first principal suggests that each person must have and must employ equal rights and the second principal states that even if there are inequality of economics in the society it should be overlooked that this inequality is not disadvantageous to anyone in the society. (Rawls, 65) In a way the views presented by John Rawls is more organized and socially attached but it is, like John Locke, based on the specific assumptions and not on hard data.

The absence of statistical data and economic justification in a formulated manner might be detrimental in suggesting the true outcome of the principals of John Rawls but it is certainly a stated fact that the author is a follower and believer of economic equality. He provides his principals for the defense of equality and he approaches a logical format to prove the bliss of economic equality and disapprove the economic inequality in the society.

In the final phase it would be logical to mention that the view presented by Crook is extremely methodical and systematic in nature and it supports the basic views of all the three authors, John Rawls, John Locke and Clive Crook, to its core. All these authors support the need of economic equality in the society and condemn the existing inequality enthusiastically. It should be mentioned the approach of John Rawls to this issue of inequality is more sociological in nature whereas the view of John Locke is more political and Clive Crook presented his views in a specified fiscal manner thus criticized the issue through the eyes of an economist.

It is true that economic inequalities in the society is a curse and is reminiscent of the imbalance of the society. The possible argument presented in this context would be that of Clive Crooks because he actually indicated the faults of the society with hard proofs where as the others simply approached the issue in a philosophic manner. However, it should also be stated that the economic inequalities of a society is basically a need in a way.

This is because the nature of wealth is to constantly accumulate. The moment there is a forceful equality of economy wealth would start to accumulate in one way or the other resulting a minute economic inequalities in the initial stages and distinctive and gigantic economic inequalities in the long run. Thus it could be stated that economic inequality is inevitable, if not essential, for any society as long as it is within the boundaries and parameters that society is able to sustain.

References:

Crook, Clive; Sep 1, 2006; The Height of Inequality; KeepMedia; The Atlantic Monthly Group; retrieved on 09. 02. 2007 from http://www. keepmedia. com/pubs/TheAtlantic/2006/09/01/1817706? extID=10037&oliID=229 and http://www. keepmedia. com/pubs/TheAtlantic/2006/09/01/1817706? page=2&emaId= Locke, John; 1993; Second Treatise of Government; National Book Trust Rawls, John; Justice as Fairness – A theory of justice

Cite this Economic Inequality

Economic Inequality. (2017, Mar 05). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/economic-inequality/

Show less
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Get help form professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay

Search for essay samples now

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get my paper now

For Only $13.90/page