The ideological history of equality (“Equality: The History of an Elusive Idea”) is an ambitious, erudite and well-written book by Darrin M. McMahon. In eleven chronological chapters McMahon shows how societies as diverse as hunter-gatherers, Greeks and Romans, early and medieval Western Christians, French revolutionaries etc. and ultimately the partisans of identity politics have thought of equality. (Not
"To insist at difference as the very meaning of equality"
Who does that? No one I've read that defends trans rights or some other minority group rights rejects the claim that there is a very large overlap in fundamental humans needs across such lines (food, shelter, water, ...). Thus there is underneath all claims to recognize differences a more fundamental basis of similarity. Does the book name names of people that McMahon ascribe such a view to?
"One can paper over this by arguing that all current movements just ask for recognition of specificity and equal treatment. But at what point does the insistence on differences, and even incommunicability of experiences, becomes exactly what we have seen before: insistence on equality within by creating an ever-greater divide from the rest?"
Your "become" ambiguates between (1) logical argument entailment and (2) psycho-social effects among the masses when differences are emphasized in political campaigns and policies.
On (1) the answer is "never", because there is no such entailment. Here there is no "papering over", since the reply can adequately answer the complaint.
On (2) the answer is "depends" because the social effects of an idea or argument, regardless of its logical consistency and philosophical soundness, depend also on how those with power to shape the wider social effects of an idea's dissemination - media, commentators, education, and also intellectuals like Branko - *choose* to react and choose to frame it to the masses.
But your worry is too fuzzy to say more about until you explain what "divide from the rest" would mean in the context of e.g. trans rights. Is your claim that trans rights policies causes discord among non-trans people in ways that make such policies net bad? If that's your claim then we really have to drill down into point (2) and examine the different actors involved. It seems to me that currently the same conservative forces that complain about possible negative social effects are the same who work hard to use their (2)-power to *bring about* those effects (generate anti-trans sentiments among their conservative followers). Their complaints are in that way at best premature and at worst dishonest, since they themselves seem to have the power to avoid the outcome they're claiming to be worried about.
We can ask: would difference-focused trans rights policies have negative social effects if powerful conservative did *not* spend lots of time and money to try make them have such effects? I don't know of any country on earth where conservatives do not currently actively try to sow anti-trans sentiments so we don't yet have direct empirical evidence to answer that question. But we might be able to learn from history. In earlier decades conservatives in europe and the US engaged in a very similar double-play on the issue of gay rights (opposed the idea because of bad consequence worries while working hard to generate those bad consequences), until they lost and fell back to begrudging and reluctant acceptance. And lo and behold society did not collapse due to same sex marriage, same sex parents, openly gay people in various professions and so on. Seems likely we're replaying that pattern now with the trans issue.
"There is probably no ideology today that would be against equality of opportunity within a nation-state."
All conservative parties in western countries are in practice against equality of opportunity every time they oppose economic inequality reduction policies. It is a scientific fact that parental wealth makes a difference to the child's educational outcomes. Thus, in a society with parental wealth disparity there is lack in equality of educational opportunity.
"It then becomes fully understandable why countries with the most developed welfare states (Sweden, Denmark Norway, the Netherlands) are the most notable examples of the ideological U-turn on international migration."
I wouldn't agree to that without further evidence. What is your criteria for "most notable"? Do you claim that those countries now have more restrictive antimigration policies than european peers like Germany and France? That seems incorrect.
Respected Professor Branko, please find the edited version of the comment converted to a blog post for my Blog
New Economics: How Theory of Revealed Preference can address Perception and Outcome of Inequality: Dialogue with Branko Milanovic. The Leading Expert on Inequality Studies and Former World Bank Economist
by
Dawood Mamoon
Abstract:
It is a centuries old debate to achieve equality in economic, social, ethnic, sociological outcomes for the individuals within a society. However the problem remains unresolved in political theory, economics and diplomacy and sometimes this manifests itself in conflict across societies with different economic and ethnic identities and within societies representing individuals with different economic, social and sociological capabilities and identities. In this article, the author makes an effort towards addressing outcomes and understanding of inequalities across nations and within nations if theory of revealed preferences and opportunity costs faced in the world and society of scarce resources is adopted as a matter of public policy and regulation. Having a capability to make economic, social and political decisions based on the understanding of opportunity costs and encompassing revealed preferences for an individual and a society is a good way to address outcomes of inequality since it is in natural scheme of things to have inequality in economic, social and political outcomes and it is rather a strength as explained by the expression ‘Strength and Beauty of Diversity within Human Societies’.
1. Inequality Resolved
Dear Professor Branko as usual a brilliant review. I should mention that there is no good expert than you in the world to comment on Inequality or equality and understands its importance or lack of it. And as an examiner of my PhD and a friend to Mansoob Murshed, I am very familiar with your work on equality or lack of it there of, though I should mention your grasp on economics including many other many important aspects and your expertise on economic history of nations is remarkable and probably that is why you thought to write a very subtle and rather kind but great review of the book on equality. Well the author of ideological history of equality respected Darrin M McMahon doesnt seem to be an economist and you adjust your review accordingly. I can associate more to Darrin than yourself and the reason being you are one of the most prominent economists on the subject matter and economics is more science than political history. I have been thinking a lot why I chose to include inequality in my PhD and it was not my grasp on the topic at all but rather this emotional observation that Darrin so beautifully explains in his book and you review it for your readers and that is that the basic identification of equality or lack of it comes through identity politics that can be easily observed by any one. The contradictions as an outcome of equality is clear where you rightly mention certain religious groups are only concerned with equality based on color, ethnicity or very religious identification as evident from expressions like Christian Brother hood. Then in my PhD I got to know the more scientific manifestation and interpretations of equality and I was so lucky to learn from many of your seminal papers that used historic data to make one point or the other. The best take was your analysis of poverty alleviation out of economic growth that was only constrained to the inclusion of China and India. It was indeed a fascinating work. Then of course I understood difference between within country inequality and global inequality especially when I mixed it up and professor Mansoob Murshed patiently referred to your work on it. Over the years I have become a good commentator of the issues resounding inequality or equality while understanding sociological aspects. But the problem remains that there is no remedy in sight for monetary inequality or inequality based on identity. I know equality is much boarder concept than inequality because it depends on relative definitions and justifications so evident in identity politics.
Is there a better theory that can address inequality within the perspectives on equality or simply inequality of monetary or social capabilities. Well I have come with an idea of a concept and that brilliance of the concept is of opportunity costs taht is very much established concept in economics.
The individual and society is always faced with opportunity costs in their choice and decisions because of scarcity of resources. For example even the most richest man Elon Musk must deal with opportunity cost every day in his decisions not only in his personal, social but professional life. Either he can spent time in office or with his kids and same goes for a clerk on a menial wage in any of his companies that he or she has to decide to be with their children or to be in the office. I think the concept of opportunity costs brilliantly addresses the perceived outcomes of inequality for any individual as a consumer or a worker and for a society.
It means we would enter into the theory of revealed preferences and it rightly drew a Nobel Prize for itself. Given that for a country like United States one may resove the issue of iequality better where there is already precedence of examples like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Zukerberg etc for making it to the riches from the rags because of equality of opportunities the American Economic System provides for hard work and ingenuity. Though one may always argue that they are all white dudes and statistics that is a brilliant tool for economics would still show its not all equal in Capitalist Society, but still at a level of a generalized theory it would be a true statement that any one can be rich, anyone can become the greatest poet or artist or a hollywood star in United States of America. We need to learn how their preferences for addressing certain opportunity costs have enabled the poor to be rich in America. Hard work, Commitment, Leadership etc may be more visible and common characteristics while taking certain risks that again can be defined through theory of opportunity costs or revealed preferences made the billionaires of America.
This would then mean to control for equality and inequality, theory of opportunity costs, its understanding and basic familiarity with the methods and tools of revealed preferences can simply bring the level playing field to any society and individual to address what ever form of inequality they face or this may also define the kind of equality they would like for themselves. Yes some basic traits defined in human rights interjections are foundational to create the capability for individuals and society to address issues pertaining to identity politics and economic inequality.
For example, If I prefer that I have to spend more time with my family, my revealed preferences would tell me that business is not the best profession for me and thereby I should not consider to be in the game to be very rich person and should expect moderate economic returns and neither should feel uncomfortable with the riches of the businessmen and businesswomen. Only this simple understanding of opportunity costs has the potential to hugely address corruption and greed within the society. If some one value money more, then it should be achievable in the life span by either through higher savings or simply entrepreneurship and the person should fore go leisure in a more broad sense.
In other words, achieving the impossible and that is that this feeling of injustice that different definitions of equality and inequality gives away would be addressed by incorporating the understanding of opportunity costs and theory of revealed preferences for individual, society or nation state.
I am sure someone like you and your esteemed friends and colleagues can carry out a far effective discussion on this. May be it is my ignorance that even during my PhD I found no work or study that related theory of revealed preferences and opportunity costs to address perceptions and outcomes of equality or inequality.
I shall be highly obliged and would be looking forward to your blog or article addressing the issue of inequality with the theories of revealed preferences and if you can refer to some work that may be useful from history of economics.
Reference:
Milonovic, Branko, ‘Equality based on exclusion’ Substack Blog, 9 July 2023
Equality based on exclusion - by Branko Milanovic (substack.com)
Dear Professor Branko as usual a brilliant review. I should mention that there is no good expert in the world to comment on Inequality or equality and understands its importance or lack of it. And as examiner of my PhD and a friend to Mansoob Murshed, I am very familiar with your work on equality or lack of it there of, though I should mention your grasp on economic including many other many important aspects and your expertise on economic history of nations is remarkable and probably that is why you thought to write a very subtle and rather kind but great review of the book on equality. Well the author of ideological history of equality respected Darrin M McMahon donot seem to be economist and you adjust your review accrodingly. I can associate more to Darrin than yourself and the reason being you are one of the most prominant economists on the subject matter and economics is more science than political history.I have been thibking a lot why I chose to include inequality in my PhD and it was not my grasp on the topic at all but rather this emotional observation that Darrin so beautifully explains in his book and you review it for your readers, the basic identification of equality or lack of it comes through identity politics that can be easily observed by any one. The contradictions where as you mention certain religious groups are only concerned with equality based on color, ethnicity or very religious identification as evident from expressions like Christian Brother hood. Then in my PhD I got to know the more scientific manifestation and interpretations of equality and I was so lucky to learn from many of your seminal papers that used historic data to make one point or the other. The best take was your analysis of poverty alleviation out of economic growth that was only constrained to the inclusion of China and India. It was indeed a fascinating work. Then ofcourse I understood difference between within country inequality and global inequality especially when I mixed it up and professor Mansoob Murshed patiently referred to your work on it. Over the years I have become a good commentator of the issues resounding inequality or equality while understanding sociological aspects. But the problem remains that there is no remedy in sight for monetary inequality or inequality based on identity. I know equality is much boarder concept than inequality because it depends on relative definitions and justifications so evident in identity politics.
Is their a better theory that can address inequality within the perspectives on equality or simply inequality of monetary or social capabilities. Well I have come to the jist of a concept and that brilliance of the concept of opportunity costs. and it is very much and well established concept in economics.
The individual and society is always faced with opportunity costs in their choice and decisions because of scarcity of resources. For example even the most richest man ELon Musk must deal with opportunity cost every day in his decisions not only his personal, social but professional life. Either he can spent time in office or with his kids and same goes for a clerk on a menial wage in any of his companies that he or she has to decide to be with their children or to be in the office. I think the concept of opportunity costs brilliantly addresses the perceived outcomes of inequality for any individual as a consumer or a worker and for a society. It means we would enter into the theory of revealed preferences and it rightly drew a Nobel Prize for itself. Given that for a country like United States where there is already precedence of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuker Berg etc for making it to the riches from the rags because of equality of opportunities the AMerican Economic System provides for hard work and ingenuity. Though one may always argue that they are all white dudes and statistics a brilliant tool for economics would still show its not all equal in Capitalist Society, at a level of a generalized theory it would be a true statement that any one can be rich, anyone can become the greatest poet or artist or a hollywood star in United States of America. We need to learn how their preferences for addressing certain opportunity costs have enabled the poor to be rich in America. Hard work Commitment, Leadership etc may be more visible and common characteristics while taking certain risks that again can be defined through theory of opportunity costs or revealed preferences.
This would then mean to control for equality and inequality, theory of oppertunity costs, its understanding and basic familiarity with the methods and tools of revealed preferences can simply bring the level playing field to any society and individual to address what ever form of inequality they face or define the kind of equality they would like for themselves. Yes some basic traits defined in human rights interjections are foundational to create the capability for individuals and society to address issues pertaining to identity politics and economic inequality.
For example, If I prefer that I have to spend more time with my family, my revealed preferences would tell me that business is not the best profession for me and thereby I should not consider to be in the game to be very rich person and should expect moderate economic returns and neither should feel uncomfortable with the riches of the businessmen and businesswomen. Only this can hugely address corruption and greed within the society. If some one value money more, then it should be achievable in the life span by either through higher savings or simply entrepreneurship.
This feeling of injustice that different definitions of equality and inequality gives away would be addressed by incorporating the understanding of opportunity costs and theory of revealed preferences for individual, society or nation state.
I am sure someone like you and your esteemed friends and colleagues can carry out a far effective discussion on this. May be it is my ignorance that even during my PhD I found no work or study that related theory of revealed preferences and opportunity costs to address perceptions and outcomes of equality or inequality.
I shall be highly obliged and would be looking forward to your blog or article addressing the issue of inequality with the theories of revealed preferences and if you can refer to some work that may be useful from history of economics.
Some thoughts on Branko Milanovic's review.
"To insist at difference as the very meaning of equality"
Who does that? No one I've read that defends trans rights or some other minority group rights rejects the claim that there is a very large overlap in fundamental humans needs across such lines (food, shelter, water, ...). Thus there is underneath all claims to recognize differences a more fundamental basis of similarity. Does the book name names of people that McMahon ascribe such a view to?
"One can paper over this by arguing that all current movements just ask for recognition of specificity and equal treatment. But at what point does the insistence on differences, and even incommunicability of experiences, becomes exactly what we have seen before: insistence on equality within by creating an ever-greater divide from the rest?"
Your "become" ambiguates between (1) logical argument entailment and (2) psycho-social effects among the masses when differences are emphasized in political campaigns and policies.
On (1) the answer is "never", because there is no such entailment. Here there is no "papering over", since the reply can adequately answer the complaint.
On (2) the answer is "depends" because the social effects of an idea or argument, regardless of its logical consistency and philosophical soundness, depend also on how those with power to shape the wider social effects of an idea's dissemination - media, commentators, education, and also intellectuals like Branko - *choose* to react and choose to frame it to the masses.
But your worry is too fuzzy to say more about until you explain what "divide from the rest" would mean in the context of e.g. trans rights. Is your claim that trans rights policies causes discord among non-trans people in ways that make such policies net bad? If that's your claim then we really have to drill down into point (2) and examine the different actors involved. It seems to me that currently the same conservative forces that complain about possible negative social effects are the same who work hard to use their (2)-power to *bring about* those effects (generate anti-trans sentiments among their conservative followers). Their complaints are in that way at best premature and at worst dishonest, since they themselves seem to have the power to avoid the outcome they're claiming to be worried about.
We can ask: would difference-focused trans rights policies have negative social effects if powerful conservative did *not* spend lots of time and money to try make them have such effects? I don't know of any country on earth where conservatives do not currently actively try to sow anti-trans sentiments so we don't yet have direct empirical evidence to answer that question. But we might be able to learn from history. In earlier decades conservatives in europe and the US engaged in a very similar double-play on the issue of gay rights (opposed the idea because of bad consequence worries while working hard to generate those bad consequences), until they lost and fell back to begrudging and reluctant acceptance. And lo and behold society did not collapse due to same sex marriage, same sex parents, openly gay people in various professions and so on. Seems likely we're replaying that pattern now with the trans issue.
"There is probably no ideology today that would be against equality of opportunity within a nation-state."
All conservative parties in western countries are in practice against equality of opportunity every time they oppose economic inequality reduction policies. It is a scientific fact that parental wealth makes a difference to the child's educational outcomes. Thus, in a society with parental wealth disparity there is lack in equality of educational opportunity.
"It then becomes fully understandable why countries with the most developed welfare states (Sweden, Denmark Norway, the Netherlands) are the most notable examples of the ideological U-turn on international migration."
I wouldn't agree to that without further evidence. What is your criteria for "most notable"? Do you claim that those countries now have more restrictive antimigration policies than european peers like Germany and France? That seems incorrect.
Respected Professor Branko, please find the edited version of the comment converted to a blog post for my Blog
New Economics: How Theory of Revealed Preference can address Perception and Outcome of Inequality: Dialogue with Branko Milanovic. The Leading Expert on Inequality Studies and Former World Bank Economist
by
Dawood Mamoon
Abstract:
It is a centuries old debate to achieve equality in economic, social, ethnic, sociological outcomes for the individuals within a society. However the problem remains unresolved in political theory, economics and diplomacy and sometimes this manifests itself in conflict across societies with different economic and ethnic identities and within societies representing individuals with different economic, social and sociological capabilities and identities. In this article, the author makes an effort towards addressing outcomes and understanding of inequalities across nations and within nations if theory of revealed preferences and opportunity costs faced in the world and society of scarce resources is adopted as a matter of public policy and regulation. Having a capability to make economic, social and political decisions based on the understanding of opportunity costs and encompassing revealed preferences for an individual and a society is a good way to address outcomes of inequality since it is in natural scheme of things to have inequality in economic, social and political outcomes and it is rather a strength as explained by the expression ‘Strength and Beauty of Diversity within Human Societies’.
1. Inequality Resolved
Dear Professor Branko as usual a brilliant review. I should mention that there is no good expert than you in the world to comment on Inequality or equality and understands its importance or lack of it. And as an examiner of my PhD and a friend to Mansoob Murshed, I am very familiar with your work on equality or lack of it there of, though I should mention your grasp on economics including many other many important aspects and your expertise on economic history of nations is remarkable and probably that is why you thought to write a very subtle and rather kind but great review of the book on equality. Well the author of ideological history of equality respected Darrin M McMahon doesnt seem to be an economist and you adjust your review accordingly. I can associate more to Darrin than yourself and the reason being you are one of the most prominent economists on the subject matter and economics is more science than political history. I have been thinking a lot why I chose to include inequality in my PhD and it was not my grasp on the topic at all but rather this emotional observation that Darrin so beautifully explains in his book and you review it for your readers and that is that the basic identification of equality or lack of it comes through identity politics that can be easily observed by any one. The contradictions as an outcome of equality is clear where you rightly mention certain religious groups are only concerned with equality based on color, ethnicity or very religious identification as evident from expressions like Christian Brother hood. Then in my PhD I got to know the more scientific manifestation and interpretations of equality and I was so lucky to learn from many of your seminal papers that used historic data to make one point or the other. The best take was your analysis of poverty alleviation out of economic growth that was only constrained to the inclusion of China and India. It was indeed a fascinating work. Then of course I understood difference between within country inequality and global inequality especially when I mixed it up and professor Mansoob Murshed patiently referred to your work on it. Over the years I have become a good commentator of the issues resounding inequality or equality while understanding sociological aspects. But the problem remains that there is no remedy in sight for monetary inequality or inequality based on identity. I know equality is much boarder concept than inequality because it depends on relative definitions and justifications so evident in identity politics.
Is there a better theory that can address inequality within the perspectives on equality or simply inequality of monetary or social capabilities. Well I have come with an idea of a concept and that brilliance of the concept is of opportunity costs taht is very much established concept in economics.
The individual and society is always faced with opportunity costs in their choice and decisions because of scarcity of resources. For example even the most richest man Elon Musk must deal with opportunity cost every day in his decisions not only in his personal, social but professional life. Either he can spent time in office or with his kids and same goes for a clerk on a menial wage in any of his companies that he or she has to decide to be with their children or to be in the office. I think the concept of opportunity costs brilliantly addresses the perceived outcomes of inequality for any individual as a consumer or a worker and for a society.
It means we would enter into the theory of revealed preferences and it rightly drew a Nobel Prize for itself. Given that for a country like United States one may resove the issue of iequality better where there is already precedence of examples like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Zukerberg etc for making it to the riches from the rags because of equality of opportunities the American Economic System provides for hard work and ingenuity. Though one may always argue that they are all white dudes and statistics that is a brilliant tool for economics would still show its not all equal in Capitalist Society, but still at a level of a generalized theory it would be a true statement that any one can be rich, anyone can become the greatest poet or artist or a hollywood star in United States of America. We need to learn how their preferences for addressing certain opportunity costs have enabled the poor to be rich in America. Hard work, Commitment, Leadership etc may be more visible and common characteristics while taking certain risks that again can be defined through theory of opportunity costs or revealed preferences made the billionaires of America.
This would then mean to control for equality and inequality, theory of opportunity costs, its understanding and basic familiarity with the methods and tools of revealed preferences can simply bring the level playing field to any society and individual to address what ever form of inequality they face or this may also define the kind of equality they would like for themselves. Yes some basic traits defined in human rights interjections are foundational to create the capability for individuals and society to address issues pertaining to identity politics and economic inequality.
For example, If I prefer that I have to spend more time with my family, my revealed preferences would tell me that business is not the best profession for me and thereby I should not consider to be in the game to be very rich person and should expect moderate economic returns and neither should feel uncomfortable with the riches of the businessmen and businesswomen. Only this simple understanding of opportunity costs has the potential to hugely address corruption and greed within the society. If some one value money more, then it should be achievable in the life span by either through higher savings or simply entrepreneurship and the person should fore go leisure in a more broad sense.
In other words, achieving the impossible and that is that this feeling of injustice that different definitions of equality and inequality gives away would be addressed by incorporating the understanding of opportunity costs and theory of revealed preferences for individual, society or nation state.
I am sure someone like you and your esteemed friends and colleagues can carry out a far effective discussion on this. May be it is my ignorance that even during my PhD I found no work or study that related theory of revealed preferences and opportunity costs to address perceptions and outcomes of equality or inequality.
I shall be highly obliged and would be looking forward to your blog or article addressing the issue of inequality with the theories of revealed preferences and if you can refer to some work that may be useful from history of economics.
Reference:
Milonovic, Branko, ‘Equality based on exclusion’ Substack Blog, 9 July 2023
Equality based on exclusion - by Branko Milanovic (substack.com)
Dear Professor Branko as usual a brilliant review. I should mention that there is no good expert in the world to comment on Inequality or equality and understands its importance or lack of it. And as examiner of my PhD and a friend to Mansoob Murshed, I am very familiar with your work on equality or lack of it there of, though I should mention your grasp on economic including many other many important aspects and your expertise on economic history of nations is remarkable and probably that is why you thought to write a very subtle and rather kind but great review of the book on equality. Well the author of ideological history of equality respected Darrin M McMahon donot seem to be economist and you adjust your review accrodingly. I can associate more to Darrin than yourself and the reason being you are one of the most prominant economists on the subject matter and economics is more science than political history.I have been thibking a lot why I chose to include inequality in my PhD and it was not my grasp on the topic at all but rather this emotional observation that Darrin so beautifully explains in his book and you review it for your readers, the basic identification of equality or lack of it comes through identity politics that can be easily observed by any one. The contradictions where as you mention certain religious groups are only concerned with equality based on color, ethnicity or very religious identification as evident from expressions like Christian Brother hood. Then in my PhD I got to know the more scientific manifestation and interpretations of equality and I was so lucky to learn from many of your seminal papers that used historic data to make one point or the other. The best take was your analysis of poverty alleviation out of economic growth that was only constrained to the inclusion of China and India. It was indeed a fascinating work. Then ofcourse I understood difference between within country inequality and global inequality especially when I mixed it up and professor Mansoob Murshed patiently referred to your work on it. Over the years I have become a good commentator of the issues resounding inequality or equality while understanding sociological aspects. But the problem remains that there is no remedy in sight for monetary inequality or inequality based on identity. I know equality is much boarder concept than inequality because it depends on relative definitions and justifications so evident in identity politics.
Is their a better theory that can address inequality within the perspectives on equality or simply inequality of monetary or social capabilities. Well I have come to the jist of a concept and that brilliance of the concept of opportunity costs. and it is very much and well established concept in economics.
The individual and society is always faced with opportunity costs in their choice and decisions because of scarcity of resources. For example even the most richest man ELon Musk must deal with opportunity cost every day in his decisions not only his personal, social but professional life. Either he can spent time in office or with his kids and same goes for a clerk on a menial wage in any of his companies that he or she has to decide to be with their children or to be in the office. I think the concept of opportunity costs brilliantly addresses the perceived outcomes of inequality for any individual as a consumer or a worker and for a society. It means we would enter into the theory of revealed preferences and it rightly drew a Nobel Prize for itself. Given that for a country like United States where there is already precedence of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuker Berg etc for making it to the riches from the rags because of equality of opportunities the AMerican Economic System provides for hard work and ingenuity. Though one may always argue that they are all white dudes and statistics a brilliant tool for economics would still show its not all equal in Capitalist Society, at a level of a generalized theory it would be a true statement that any one can be rich, anyone can become the greatest poet or artist or a hollywood star in United States of America. We need to learn how their preferences for addressing certain opportunity costs have enabled the poor to be rich in America. Hard work Commitment, Leadership etc may be more visible and common characteristics while taking certain risks that again can be defined through theory of opportunity costs or revealed preferences.
This would then mean to control for equality and inequality, theory of oppertunity costs, its understanding and basic familiarity with the methods and tools of revealed preferences can simply bring the level playing field to any society and individual to address what ever form of inequality they face or define the kind of equality they would like for themselves. Yes some basic traits defined in human rights interjections are foundational to create the capability for individuals and society to address issues pertaining to identity politics and economic inequality.
For example, If I prefer that I have to spend more time with my family, my revealed preferences would tell me that business is not the best profession for me and thereby I should not consider to be in the game to be very rich person and should expect moderate economic returns and neither should feel uncomfortable with the riches of the businessmen and businesswomen. Only this can hugely address corruption and greed within the society. If some one value money more, then it should be achievable in the life span by either through higher savings or simply entrepreneurship.
This feeling of injustice that different definitions of equality and inequality gives away would be addressed by incorporating the understanding of opportunity costs and theory of revealed preferences for individual, society or nation state.
I am sure someone like you and your esteemed friends and colleagues can carry out a far effective discussion on this. May be it is my ignorance that even during my PhD I found no work or study that related theory of revealed preferences and opportunity costs to address perceptions and outcomes of equality or inequality.
I shall be highly obliged and would be looking forward to your blog or article addressing the issue of inequality with the theories of revealed preferences and if you can refer to some work that may be useful from history of economics.