PHIL 2600 Discussion 2

PHIL 2600 Discussion 2 | Tulane University

August 31st discussion questions

·         Watch the above video.   

·         Please read the Mankiw article.   

·         You may either make a post answering one of the following questions or make a reply post. Fulfilling one of these two options is enough. If your post is a reply, it must be substantive. It should either be about how the original poster misconstrues Mankiw’s (or someone else’s) position, leaves something important out, or a criticism of Mankiw’s (or someone else’s) argument(s)/definitions. Posts along the lines of “I really like how so and so did such and such” will be given 0's.   

·         Reply posts should be made in a colorful font.   

·         This discussion post closes on August 31st at 10am.    

1) There is a lot of technical terminology from both economics and philosophy in the Mankiw paper that some of us might not be familiar with. Define the following and give examples where applicable:   

Rent  

Progressive tax  

Regressive tax  

Positive externality  

Negative externality   

Pigouvian tax  

Equality of opportunity   

Elastic good  

Inelastic good   

Utility   

Utilitarianism   

Desert   

2) Stiglitz proposes the following metric to measure the degree of inequality of opportunity in America:   

the intergenerational transmission of income […] “If America were really a land of opportunity, the life chances of success […] of someone born to a poor or less educated family would be the same as those of someone born to a rich, well-educated, and well-connected family.” In other words, under this definition of equality of opportunity, people’s earnings would be uncorrelated with those of their parents. (25)  

Mankiw gives several criticisms of this metric. Recapitulate Mankiw’s arguments. Analyze these arguments. Note that one of Mankiw’s responses involves a clear logical fallacy; what is this fallacy?  

3) Mankiw considers three arguments from the left (29-32). What are these three arguments, and how does Mankiw respond to these arguments? You may break this question down into three parts, wherein the original poster is only responsible for one of the three arguments and the next original poster tackles the second argument and so on.   

4) Mankiw makes a number of bold empirical claims throughout his paper. Are all of these claims true? If you think one of these claims is false, say so and cite evidence backing up your claim(s).   

Jesse