Your periodic reminder that there's a heavy stigma in economics against using genetic differences to explain anything that happens in economics.https://twitter.com/AndreaRoventini/status/1156855962109693952 …
-
-
Replying to @primalpoly
From a Rawlsean perspective, your genes are like a lottery. So if they are an important factor in your wealth, this can be an argument for redistribution. But we are not even allowed to research and think about these things? And if we try there is moral shaming.
7 replies 1 retweet 33 likes -
Replying to @jonatanpallesen @primalpoly
Except your genes are only a true lottery if your parents mated at random. Given that most parents choose their partners, children are the beneficiaries of choice, not luck.
6 replies 6 retweets 37 likes -
Replying to @JamesPsychol @jonatanpallesen
This is a crucial point, often overlooked.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
How is this different from pure luck from the child’s point of view?
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
Why are you even thinking of that perspective? Even if you accept the Rawsian frame (ridiculous to begin with) people there know they're sexually reproducing beings with wishes for their children If they don't then maybe the veil optimizes for the best society for amoeba
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.