inequality

I'm not suggesting that social scientists stop teaching and investigating classic topics like monopoly power, racial profiling and health inequality. But everyone knows that monopoly power is bad for markets, that people are racially biased and that illness is unequally distributed by social class.

The main force pushing toward reduction in inequality has always been the diffusion of knowledge and the diffusion of education.

The capitalist and consumerist ethics are two sides of the same coin, a merger of two commandments. The supreme commandment of the rich is __nvest!_ The supreme commandment of the rest of us is __uy!_ The capitalist__onsumerist ethic is revolutionary in another respect. Most previous ethical systems presented people with a pretty tough deal. They were promised paradise, but only if they cultivated compassion and tolerance, overcame craving and anger, and restrained their selfish interests. This was too tough for most. The history of ethics is a sad tale of wonderful ideals that nobody can live up to. Most Christians did not imitate Christ, most Buddhists failed to follow Buddha, and most Confucians would have caused Confucius a temper tantrum. In contrast, most people today successfully live up to the capitalist__onsumerist ideal. The new ethic promises paradise on condition that the rich remain greedy and spend their time making more money and that the masses give free reign to their cravings and passions and buy more and more. This is the first religion in history whose followers actually do what they are asked to do. How though do we know that we'll really get paradise in return? We've seen it on television.

Under-representation of women and other inequality among researchers is a problem that will not solve itself as women acquire competence.

The equality among all members of the League, which is provided in the statutes giving each state only one vote, cannot of course abolish the actual material inequality of the powers concerned.

It's well proven that if you have equality in society, society flourishes, and if you have inequality, it doesn't. So it's good for everybody.

Inequality can have a bad downside, but equality, for its part, sure does get in the way of coordination.

Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality - an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order.

There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded and some men never leave the country. Life is unfair.

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

Occupying the bottom end of the inequality ladder, and becoming a 'collateral victim' of a human action or a natural disaster, interact the way the opposite poles of magnets do: they tend to gravitate towards each other.

As long as fathers rule but do not nurture, as long as mothers nurture but do not rule, the conditions favoring the development of father-daughter incest will prevail.

Taking measures to ensure stability could assure the long-term economic growth and welfare at a global level

At its most basic, the logic of 'meritocracy' is ironclad: putting the most qualified, best equipped people into the positions of greates responsibility and import...But my central contention is that our near-religious fidelity to the meritocratic model comes with huge costs. We overestimate the advantages of meritocracy and underappreciate its costs, because we don't think hard enough about the consequences of the inequality it produces. As Americans, we take it as a given that unequal levels of achievement are natural, even desirable. Sociologist Jermole Karabel, whose work looks at elite formation, once said he 'didnt think any advanced democracy is as obsessed with equality of opportunity or as relatively unconcerned with equality of condition' as the United States. This is our central problem. And my proposed solution for correcting the excesses of our extreme version of meritocracy is quite simple: make America more equal

Surely you can see the failings of the system. Inequality, injustice, unfairness, and exploitation--

I don't know about you, but I only have one life, and I don't want to spend it in a sewer of injustice.

I wonder why it is that the countries with the most nobles also have the most misery?

Mistresses, have you ever noticed that when we disagree with a male _ I hesitate to say __an_ _ or find ourselves in a position over males, the first comment they make is always about our reputations or our monthlies?__ne of the new women snorted. Others snic