• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which of the offered social welfare (economics context) models most obtains your approbation?

Which of the offered social welfare (economics context) models most obtains your approbation?

  • Total voters
    6
  • This poll will close: .
Xelor

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which of the below social welfare models [functions] most obtains your approbation?
  • Benthamite/Utilitarian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB], …,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = Σ[SUB]i[/SUB]θ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB], where θ[SUB]i[/SUB]≥0 (the weights can, for example, be equal across individuals, or be proportional to income)
  • Rawlsian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB],…,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = min[SUB]i[/SUB](u[SUB]i[/SUB])
  • Nozickian model
  • Commodity Egalitarian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB],…,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = Σ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB]- λΣ[SUB]i[/SUB][u[SUB]i[/SUB]-min[SUB]i[/SUB](u[SUB]i[/SUB])], where λ indicates the relative weight placed on equality


Variables listing:​


  • [*=1]W = social welfare
    [*=1]N = # of people in Society (i=1, ...., N)
    [*=1]x is a composite material good
    [*=1]X=(x[SUB]1[/SUB], x[SUB]2,[/SUB] ...., x[SUB]N[/SUB]) is the set of individual consumption vectors
    [*=1]u[SUB]i[/SUB](x[SUB]i[/SUB],e) is individual i’s utility function (a function of materialgoods and environmental quality)

    • [*=1]e is environmental quality, same for all agents
 
Xelor said:
Which of the below social welfare models [functions] most obtains your approbation?
  • Benthamite/Utilitarian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB], …,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = Σ[SUB]i[/SUB]θ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB], where θ[SUB]i[/SUB]≥0 (the weights can, for example, be equal across individuals, or be proportional to income)
  • Rawlsian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB],…,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = min[SUB]i[/SUB](u[SUB]i[/SUB])
  • Nozickian model
  • Commodity Egalitarian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB],…,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = Σ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB]- λΣ[SUB]i[/SUB][u[SUB]i[/SUB]-min[SUB]i[/SUB](u[SUB]i[/SUB])], where λ indicates the relative weight placed on equality


Variables listing:​


  • [*=1]W = social welfare
    [*=1]N = # of people in Society (i=1, ...., N)
    [*=1]x is a composite material good
    [*=1]X=(x[SUB]1[/SUB], x[SUB]2,[/SUB] ...., x[SUB]N[/SUB]) is the set of individual consumption vectors
    [*=1]u[SUB]i[/SUB](x[SUB]i[/SUB],e) is individual i’s utility function (a function of materialgoods and environmental quality)

    • [*=1]e is environmental quality, same for all agents
Click to expand...

English translations must be provided if you want my attention.

I never had you figured as a snob.
 
Xelor said:
Which of the below social welfare models [functions] most obtains your approbation?
  • Benthamite/Utilitarian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB], …,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = Σ[SUB]i[/SUB]θ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB], where θ[SUB]i[/SUB]≥0 (the weights can, for example, be equal across individuals, or be proportional to income)
  • Rawlsian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB],…,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = min[SUB]i[/SUB](u[SUB]i[/SUB])
  • Nozickian model
  • Commodity Egalitarian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB],…,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = Σ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB]- λΣ[SUB]i[/SUB][u[SUB]i[/SUB]-min[SUB]i[/SUB](u[SUB]i[/SUB])], where λ indicates the relative weight placed on equality


Variables listing:​


  • [*=1]W = social welfare
    [*=1]N = # of people in Society (i=1, ...., N)
    [*=1]x is a composite material good
    [*=1]X=(x[SUB]1[/SUB], x[SUB]2,[/SUB] ...., x[SUB]N[/SUB]) is the set of individual consumption vectors
    [*=1]u[SUB]i[/SUB](x[SUB]i[/SUB],e) is individual i’s utility function (a function of materialgoods and environmental quality)

    • [*=1]e is environmental quality, same for all agents
Click to expand...

Commodity Egalitarian probably cleaves the closest.

Also, the presentation of the options in the OP is needlessly obfuscated and technical (why would you choose formulas over qualitative descriptions?), even pretentious.
 
I like it when I have money more than when I don’t have money. So whichever economics model that is, I guess.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
English translations must be provided if you want my attention.

I never had you figured as a snob.
Click to expand...
Red:
Click the "social welfare" hyperlink and watch the video. That link is provided expressly for "non-mathy" and/or naive-to-economics readers, whereas the equations are for "mathy" folks who don't want to take the time to watch the video. The lecturer does an excellent job of explaining each of the models. Not only does the video explain the functions, but it also calls attention to the key implications of each of them.


Blue:
Mostly, I'm not. Snobs hold against others' those others' existential inferiority of "whatever" dimension(s) (wealth/income, intellect, character, birthright, social station, professional accomplishment, or a host of others). I mostly don't do that. I merely recognize those qualities' extancy and choose, based on my own preferences and tolerances, whether I want to be bothered with them. The one dimension in which I at times am a snob is the dimension of character.

Surrealistik said:
Commodity Egalitarian probably cleaves the closest.


Also, the presentation of the options in the OP is needlessly obfuscated and technical (why would you choose formulas over qualitative descriptions?), even pretentious.
Click to expand...
First, TY for your direct answer.

Red:
See my "red" remarks above.

Direct answer to your question:


  • Because I was unwilling to take time writing out what someone else had already done a very fine job of explaining.
  • Because I've observed that someone or some several folks will be displeased with how I present any idea or pose any question. In some instances, folks have even deigned to tell me that the question I asked was the "wrong" question. (As if!) Thus I choose whatever mode of presentation that suits my taste at the time I compose the post.
 
Off-Topic:

Surrealistik said:
Commodity Egalitarian probably cleaves the closest.

Also, the presentation of the options in the OP is needlessly obfuscated and technical (why would you choose formulas over qualitative descriptions?), even pretentious.
Click to expand...

So I tried you advice to a degree. I provided a "plain language" overview of the topic (I tailored the overview to high school seniors) and explicitly pointed people to the link whereat they will find explanations of each model. Plenty of people have clicked on thread, but nobody has actually responded. The response rate is thus lower than it is in this thread. So, by my reckoning, it doesn't matter whether I broached the topic narratively or empirically.
​
 
Xelor said:
Off-Topic:



So I tried you advice to a degree. I provided a "plain language" overview of the topic (I tailored the overview to high school seniors) and explicitly pointed people to the link whereat they will find explanations of each model. Plenty of people have clicked on thread, but nobody has actually responded. The response rate is thus lower than it is in this thread. So, by my reckoning, it doesn't matter whether I broached the topic narratively or empirically.
​
Click to expand...

Broach it in conversant vernacular...........imo....
 
Xelor said:
Which of the below social welfare models [functions] most obtains your approbation?
  • Benthamite/Utilitarian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB], …,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = Σ[SUB]i[/SUB]θ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB], where θ[SUB]i[/SUB]≥0 (the weights can, for example, be equal across individuals, or be proportional to income)
  • Rawlsian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB],…,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = min[SUB]i[/SUB](u[SUB]i[/SUB])
  • Nozickian model
  • Commodity Egalitarian model
    • W(u[SUB]1[/SUB],…,u[SUB]N[/SUB]) = Σ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB]- λΣ[SUB]i[/SUB][u[SUB]i[/SUB]-min[SUB]i[/SUB](u[SUB]i[/SUB])], where λ indicates the relative weight placed on equality


Variables listing:​


  • [*=1]W = social welfare
    [*=1]N = # of people in Society (i=1, ...., N)
    [*=1]x is a composite material good
    [*=1]X=(x[SUB]1[/SUB], x[SUB]2,[/SUB] ...., x[SUB]N[/SUB]) is the set of individual consumption vectors
    [*=1]u[SUB]i[/SUB](x[SUB]i[/SUB],e) is individual i’s utility function (a function of materialgoods and environmental quality)

    • [*=1]e is environmental quality, same for all agents
Click to expand...

First of all, thank you for this post. I actually learned something from it. :thumbs:

Utilitarian seems sensible. Bill Gates has less to lose than I have to gain by a partial redistribution of wealth from him to a common person, so, why not do it?

Rawlsian is too extreme. Seems like straight-up communism to me.

Nozickianism also seems sensible. Allows for free transactions; only requires equal opportunities, but it is there that most inequalities arise.

In theory I like the commodity egalitarian model. Seems to be a good mix of freedom and baseline standards of living.
 
Phys251 said:
First of all, thank you for this post. I actually learned something from it. :thumbs:

Utilitarian seems sensible. Bill Gates has less to lose than I have to gain by a partial redistribution of wealth from him to a common person, so, why not do it?

Rawlsian is too extreme. Seems like straight-up communism to me.

Nozickianism also seems sensible. Allows for free transactions; only requires equal opportunities, but it is there that most inequalities arise.

In theory I like the commodity egalitarian model. Seems to be a good mix of freedom and baseline standards of living.
Click to expand...

Red and Off-Topic:
You're welcome. FWIW, you may like reading my very brief description of what social welfare is economically speaking. That discussion attempts (as much as I think apropos here) to explain how social welfare is measured.

If the learning resulted from clicking on the "social welfare" link and watching the video, you likely discovered too that the selected video is part of an MIT economics course offered online and for free. If you enjoyed Jon's lecture, I heartily suggest taking the whole online course. Two other video series I strongly recommend to anyone who never studied, studied and forgot a lot, or struggled with economics in school are Berkeley's "Introduction to Economics" course and Khan Academy's economics content.

From my "here and there" glimpses of the content of the econ videos (my degree is in econ, so I'm not going to spend time looking at them other than to make sure the lectures are presented on an "everyman" level) they're excellent for folks who want to understand the ideas but who don't want to be tested -- and receive a grade that matters -- on them.[SUP]1[/SUP] The one caution I'd offer is they are courses not discrete lectures; thus one while can watch the videos in any order, since they are part of a course, watching them in order is best. Watch Jon's healthcare lecture and you'll see what I mean. He mentions several concepts he covered in prior lectures and that, come the healthcare lecture, he isn't going to re-explain.


Note:
  1. They often are because econ profs love to do is deliver applied economics lectures. The "problem" comes at test time because econ profs also love to ask test questions that bid students to do the same but by presenting their test answers in the empirical or graphical way most textbooks do. Suffice to say that their doing so is why many a would-be econ major didn't become one. Some schools deal with that by offering intro classes for majors and non-majors; others just offer a course that both kinds of students take. (I haven't looked at Jon's tests, so I have no idea whether his is a principles course for majors or non-majors.)


Blue:
It the model that garners my approbation too. Curiously, however -- and you may have noticed this in other subforums on DP -- when one presents that model in an applied context, people will rail against it. To wit:
Xelor said:
I cannot lie. I hate the pay-ratio, pay-gap, income inequality discussion/narrative that these days suffuse our discourse. I do because the gap in pay isn't the problem. Think about it:

  1. Do you care that someone else makes any given amount more or less than you?
  2. Do you care that your wages are insufficient to allow you to afford a "reasonable" lifestyle?
Maybe you are so envious that the first is what discontents you. I think most people's dissatisfaction derives from the second option.
Click to expand...
Xelor said:
income inequality...is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in and of itself. Cure the actual problem and the income inequality will fix itself, as it were.
Click to expand...
Xelor said:
Income inequality is not the problem. It doesn't matter whether "you" and "I" earn vastly differing incomes. It matters whether one or both of us earn enough to support ourselves.
  • Bill --> $80K/year
  • Mark --> 180K/year
  • Mary --> $800K/year
  • Peter --> $8M/year
So long as the cost of living where each of the above four individuals lives is such that they can sustain themselves, that any of them makes more or less than the other merely indicates the extent of disposable income each of them has.
Click to expand...

In one instance I found myself responding to someone who is of a mind that the minimum wage will attenuate income inequality.

In so kvetching, they present notions that align preponderantly with Rawls or Bentham, and then in a wholly different thread, the advocate for ideas and policies that comport best with the egalitarian model. Truly, the incoherence of that astounds me.
 
Surrealistik said:
Commodity Egalitarian probably cleaves the closest.

Also, the presentation of the options in the OP is needlessly obfuscated and technical (why would you choose formulas over qualitative descriptions?), even pretentious.
Click to expand...

If I were 30 years younger, I would enjoy plugging observations into those formulas. Once you get your degree, it loses it's charm, that is unless some cute co-ed was struggling with the material enough to exchange interests to help her ace her Econometrics course.
 
Income inequality is not the problem. It doesn't matter whether "you" and "I" earn vastly differing incomes. It matters whether one or both of us earn enough to support ourselves.
Click to expand...

You summed up the premise of your OP in one concise sentence!
 
Income inequality is not the problem. It doesn't matter whether "you" and "I" earn vastly differing incomes. It matters whether one or both of us earn enough to support ourselves.
SDET said:
You summed up the premise of your OP in one concise sentence!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
????

This thread's OP has no premise. It asks a non-rhetorical and non-loaded/leading question that asks members to indicate which of four social welfare models most meets with their approbation; that's it. Hell, the OP/thread/poll question doesn't even require that or ask whether one absolutely approve of any of the models offered. Questions such as those posed in the OP/poll don't have premises.
 
Surrealistik said:
Commodity Egalitarian probably cleaves the closest.

Also, the presentation of the options in the OP is needlessly obfuscated and technical (why would you choose formulas over qualitative descriptions?), even pretentious.
Click to expand...

Red:
Since when should one think that addition and multiplication are beyond the capacity of the average reader who's completed the 8th grade?
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Since when should one think that addition and multiplication are beyond the capacity of the average reader who's completed the 8th grade?
Click to expand...

I'm going to hazard a guess that most people on this board have either never learned about, or at the very least have long forgotten, having been out of HS for many years and never needed to apply the knowledge, such things as sigma or lambda and sets.

Then you've got undefined stuff like min per the Commodity Egalitarian formula, that, while it may be possible to intuit, unless you are familiar with the subject matter, you may not guess at.
 
Surrealistik said:
I'm going to hazard a guess that most people on this board have either never learned about, or at the very least have long forgotten, having been out of HS for many years and never needed to apply the knowledge, such things as sigma or lambda and sets.

Then you've got undefined stuff like min per the Commodity Egalitarian formula, that, while it may be possible to intuit, unless you are familiar with the subject matter, you may not guess at.
Click to expand...

Red:
Really?
  • Sigma and lambda are merely weighting constants in those equations....one doesn't even need their value to know what a constant does. Are you truly suggesting folks don't know what it means to weight a factor or a sum?
  • Sets...One doesn't need to know anything other than what a set is. One doesn't need even to know math to know that.
  • Forgot or not, I provided links that explain the concepts so that even if one was never taught how to multiply and add, one can still comprehend the equations.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Really?
  • Sigma and lambda are merely weighting constants in those equations....one doesn't even need their value to know what a constant does. Are you truly suggesting folks don't know what it means to weight a factor or a sum?
  • Sets...One doesn't need to know anything other than what a set is. One doesn't need even to know math to know that.
  • Forgot or not, I provided links that explain the concepts so that even if one was never taught how to multiply and add, one can still comprehend the equations.
Click to expand...

Sigma and lambda are important to determining the meaning of the formulas, so if you don't know what they are, you won't know what to make of it, same with sets.

Overall I'd say the level of response to this thread ultimately backs my point; yes, they can and probably should check out that link to get an elaboration, but most as a practical matter will not.
 
Xelor said:
So, by my reckoning, it doesn't matter whether I broached the topic narratively or empirically.
Click to expand...

How in the world does one broach a topic empirically?
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Really?
  • Sigma and lambda are merely weighting constants in those equations....one doesn't even need their value to know what a constant does. Are you truly suggesting folks don't know what it means to weight a factor or a sum?
  • Sets...One doesn't need to know anything other than what a set is. One doesn't need even to know math to know that.
  • Forgot or not, I provided links that explain the concepts so that even if one was never taught how to multiply and add, one can still comprehend the equations.
Click to expand...

Yeah...uh...sigma, lambda, and theta are variously operators or functions in mathematics (though the notation used in the OP is not standard--may be a limitation of the medium). If they're being used as constants here, you need to spell that out.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yeah...uh...sigma, lambda, and theta are variously operators or functions in mathematics (though the notation used in the OP is not standard--may be a limitation of the medium). If they're being used as constants here, you need to spell that out.
Click to expand...
Red:
It was spelled out. Did you not notice, for instance re: the Benthamite model:
  • Σiθ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB], where θ[SUB]i[/SUB]≥0
  • the variables listing and
  • the statement "the weights can, for example, be equal across individuals, or be proportional to income?"
Remember, the question asks about one's view of a model, not about any specific individual's (or group's) social welfare.

FWIW, lambda was also clearly identified: "λ indicates the relative weight placed on equality." It's merely a weighting factor. Sigma is a standard additive operator.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
Here are two ways:
Click to expand...

I was asking how one broaches a topic empirically. To broach a topic is to introduce it, to start talking about it, to bring it up, etc. I can broach a topic glibly, by being glib while broaching it. I can broach a topic mournfully, by making as if I'm mourning while broaching the topic. I cannot broach a topic, say, financially, since that adverb doesn't describe the kind of action broaching is. Similarly, I have no idea how someone could broach a topic empirically, since the adverb "empirically" seems not to describe the kind of action broaching is.
 
Surrealistik said:
Sigma and lambda are important to determining the meaning of the formulas, so if you don't know what they are, you won't know what to make of it, same with sets.

Overall I'd say the level of response to this thread ultimately backs my point; yes, they can and probably should check out that link to get an elaboration, but most as a practical matter will not.
Click to expand...

Red:
And yet as simple as social welfare models are at the level presented, and for as often as people deign to opine on notions of what constitutes an equitable way of apportioning/establishing aggregate social welfare, by inference from your remarks (in this and a prior post), they haven't the wherewithal to consider the four primary, and frankly very simple (as I said, it's nothing other than addition and multiplication), ways in which aggregate social welfare are calculated and apply them to their own conception of the matter.
  • What is there to make of lambda? It was clearly spelled out: "λ indicates the relative weight placed on equality."

Blue:
As noted earlier, explaining (in English rather than in math) the nature of social welfare models obtains no greater response, so the causal relationship you note is unlikely.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I was asking how one broaches a topic empirically. To broach a topic is to introduce it, to start talking about it, to bring it up, etc. I can broach a topic glibly, by being glib while broaching it. I can broach a topic mournfully, by making as if I'm mourning while broaching the topic. I cannot broach a topic, say, financially, since that adverb doesn't describe the kind of action broaching is. Similarly, I have no idea how someone could broach a topic empirically, since the adverb "empirically" seems not to describe the kind of action broaching is.
Click to expand...

Well, I suggest you click here to see how one can broach empirically. It doesn't take much -- I did it by asking readers which of the noted empirical models they most preferred. Alternatively, you can read the discussions to which I linked.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
It was spelled out. Did you not notice, for instance re: the Benthamite model:
  • Σiθ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB], where θ[SUB]i[/SUB]≥0
  • the variables listing and
  • the statement "the weights can, for example, be equal across individuals, or be proportional to income?"
Remember, the question asks about one's view of a model, not about any specific individual's (or group's) social welfare.

FWIW, lambda was also clearly identified: "λ indicates the relative weight placed on equality." It's merely a weighting factor. Sigma is a standard additive operator.
Click to expand...

No, it was not spelled out. That theta sub-i could be greater than or equal to zero doesn't mean theta is a constant. It could be a variable. It could refer to functions whose values can only be greater than or equal to zero.

When you say "lambda indicates the relative weight placed on equality" that also doesn't indicate a constant. You could just as well be saying that some anonymous function indicates the relative weight placed on equality.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
It was spelled out. Did you not notice, for instance re: the Benthamite model:
  • Σiθ[SUB]i[/SUB]u[SUB]i[/SUB], where θ[SUB]i[/SUB]≥0
  • the variables listing and
  • the statement "the weights can, for example, be equal across individuals, or be proportional to income?"
Remember, the question asks about one's view of a model, not about any specific individual's (or group's) social welfare.

FWIW, lambda was also clearly identified: "λ indicates the relative weight placed on equality." It's merely a weighting factor. Sigma is a standard additive operator.

ashurbanipal said:
No, it was not spelled out. That theta sub-i could be greater than or equal to zero doesn't mean theta is a constant. It could be a variable. It could refer to functions whose values can only be greater than or equal to zero.

When you say "lambda indicates the relative weight placed on equality" that also doesn't indicate a constant. You could just as well be saying that some anonymous function indicates the relative weight placed on equality.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Red:
grasping20at20straws.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom