Equality ≠ Equal Quality

I have written on LRC about the book The Physics of Life by my friend Professor Adrian Bejan.  LRC readers might be interested his recent paper that he has sent me, The Physics Basis of Wealth Inequality (published in the Journal of Applied Physics), that purports to prove from physics principles and mathematical analysis that wealth inequality is necessary to wealth creation.

The fundamental concept follows Bejan’s Constructal Law that posits that the economy (wealth creation) is a flow system and “for a finite-size flow system to persist in time (to survive) its configuration must evolve (morph) in time in such a way that it provides easier flow access.” The empirical evidence he uses are fuel consumed (as a measurable for movement and work) and output of wealth as measured by GDP.  These variables are plotted for various countries (political units) and over time to make the case that “the annual wealth of a population or territory is essentially proportional to the useful energy (or work and movement) generated annually by that group or on that territory.”  As Bejan explains further, “This finding is pivotal for the physics discipline because it shows that the economics concept of wealth has a physics basis, which is measurable as work, fuel consumed, or movement effected by fuel, food, and work. This is the unication—the connection—of economics and physics.” From this physics basis he uses the Constructal Law, in analogy with the development of engines and river basins, to predict the natural occurrence of hierarchical movement and wealth on earth. His conclusions

Buy Silver at Discounted Prices

I will leave it to the reader to investigate the mathematics if she is interested, but I will mention that in my previous article reviewing Bejan’s book I proposed that the Constructal Law should be applied to explain the Pareto power law ratio (I would call it an observation). I was pleased to see in the current physics article, perhaps due to my suggestion, that “The individuals with less movement are the less wealthy who are thought to represent 80 percent of the total population, as reported by Pareto.  This means that the model and analysis that led to Fig. 6 to be seen in the original article] indicate that for _1/2= 0.8, there must be a relation between n and k, for example, n=2 of k=2 or 3.” But note that the value of the constants to obtain Pareto 80% ratio are not predicted but chosen to fit the observed data in keeping with the Misean view of the limits of economic calculation.

Furthermore, it seems to me, that these calculations will not assuage those who feel strongly that inequality is a root of evil in society.  For example, David Gordon recently reviewed a book on the topic of “luck egalitarianism.” As Gordon summed up the premise, “if you earn a great deal of money in a free market economy, you “lucked out”: you happen to have a set of abilities and personal traits that enable you to supply consumers with what they want to buy. It is not that you deserve to have these desirable traits: you just happen to have them.” If you believe in luck egalitarianism the Bejan physics law in the form of a mathematical construct will have no import even if his conclusions that wealth inequality is (1) a natural phenomenon, (2) impossible to erase, and (3) good for the flowing (i.e. wealth) of the whole populated landscape are easy to understand.

I think a more fruitful approach to combat the egalitarian consensus was presented by a young Oxford University professor of Political Theory, Teresa Bejan, Professor Bejan’s daughter. In 2016, she was elected as the final Balzan-Skinner Fellow in Modern Intellectual History at the University of Cambridge. Her keynote lecture, ‘Acknowledging Equality,’ can be viewed here. It is an intellectual tour de force that explained the importance of doffing one’s hat in 17th century England; that is, a review of history, theology, political theory, literature, philosophy, and language, delivered with humor and wit, that the concept, even the word “equality,” is not so simple as the contemporary social justice warriors would have us believe.

Despite my technical misgivings about his analysis I am always in awe of Bejan’s innovative brilliance. His scholarly output is extraordinary (over 600 papers and 30 books). Thus, the Bejans, father and daughter, if they are paid more than the average it is because they produce more of higher quality than others. Thus my formulation of the problem as an equation is that Equality ≠ Equal Quality, nor it follows does equal pay.

The post Equality ≠ Equal Quality appeared first on LewRockwell.