Saul Eslake tells us “One doesn’t need to be a socialist (and I’m certainly not)” and he says “distribution matters”.

Then he paraphrases Winston Churchill about markets being the worst system of wealth exchange, but better than any other device.

Finally:
“It may not be illegal for executives of companies to award themselves large salary increases or bonuses, or to put their hands up for large options packages with undemanding performance hurdles, whilst simultaneously sacking large numbers of their employees (or arguing for greater freedom to do so).”
Mr. Eslake’, does so disclose his aversion to unbalance in distribution of wealth and consequently sides with a norm that condemns utter greed.

Mr. Eslake,
doesn’t ‘Minimum Basic wage’ imply ‘Maximum Top Wage?

The meritorious deserve acknowledgement, but to the point of paradox?

Did ever pass our minds that banks are for lending the deposits of a group in order to supply the necessary capital to another group willing to ameliorate the condition of society.

According to this concept, the only economic concept morally valid, we are all bankers and those of us who care for the transactions in the process surely deserve a reward but not one as huge as to starve the institution itself of operational capital?

What reason is there in getting huge wages other than insulting both depositors and lenders

Saul - so we have to undermine the market economy in order to support the market economy? I admit that makes no sense to me.

Besides, the fact that some people spend more than they earn, or go into debt too deep, of itself has nothing to do with the market economy. They could and would still do it even if government arbitrarily redistributes other people's income. People who live beyond their means either need to spend less or earn more, simple as that. Their financial problems have nothing to do with the fact that other people provide services that society considers more valuable. Your argument is a complete non sequitur. It's like saying "Cows moo, therefore we should attack people's freedom".

Also, the reason it's so easy to go into debt is because of fractional reserve banking. This is not a market phenomenon, it's a government-overriding-the-market phenomenon. The government does it so as to create a market for its debt.

The first fallacy of economics, explained in Year 11 economics, is the idea that one person's gain is another person's loss. This is false, otherwise mankind would still be making stuff by bashing things with rocks.

You should be refuting this myth, not propagating it.

Saul's article is a classic example of an original government intervention producing negative consequences which the interventionists want to fix with more interventions.

…The market economy forces inequality thus; as the good fortune of success allows unlimited social progress upwards with all the rewards of wealth accumulations and influence, (top 1%); in the reverse, the opposite is true: The bottom is homelessness, offering the huge impediment of very limited opportunities of escape!

…The less Government manipulation of market outcomes the more unbalanced are social outcomes. This can be a good or a bad “thing” depending on the way the market is warped.

… Living a life of poverty, as many do, should offer alternatives supportive of individual survival, which currently are very limited, and is exacerbated by Government regulations which attempt to standardise society, forcing a conformity to the market. It does this through local Government regulations which pick-off those individuals forced to live alternative lifestyles.

…Byron shire in NSW is an exception: It has set aside an area designated for “primitive camping”, allowing the growing number of the homeless in the area to sleep without harassment. A disturbing and growing trend!

"…The market economy forces inequality thus"

You're not understanding the issue, which is, that we don't have a market economy. We've got one in which the market is controlled at every turn, and government controls interest rates and everything else. Most significant business decisions turn on government regulations. This has consequences. It's causing the poverty that, when you see it, you blame on the market economy.

"as the good fortune of success allows unlimited social progress upwards with all the rewards of wealth accumulations and influence, (top 1%); in the reverse, the opposite is true:"

The good fortune comes from providing what the 99% want; that's how the top 1% get the money.

"The bottom is homelessness, offering the huge impediment of very limited opportunities of escape!"

Why do you blame homelessness on the market economy? Have you ever tried providing rental accommodation to people? If you have, you'll know that government makes it non-viable in lots of different ways. For example, what do you think might be the effect of government manipulating the interest rates, on homelessness? Think about it.

"…The less Government manipulation of market outcomes the more unbalanced are social outcomes".

That's an article of faith, not of reason. If it's true, why not just abolish individual freedom and private property and have one hundred percent government control of everything?

meanwhile half the world work all day just to feed themselves while bludging occupiers want more money from the dole than people who have not got time to waste protesting about anything and everything.

Hi,
As I understand it, the data from Atkinson and Leigh that Mr Eslake cites is derived from the ATO Tax Statistics. It does indeed refer to gross (ie. pre-tax income). However, my understanding is that this measure includes transfer payments, as they are taxable income.

Therefore, the changes in the income of the "bottom 90%" and the shares of various quantiles could be affected by changes in the transfer system. It is difficult to conclude from this data, then, whether 'market' inequality has grown or fallen.

Instead, we can use the ABS microdata from the Survey of Income and Housing. Professor Whiteford has done this along with a colleague, and presented their findings at a recent University of Melbourne/BSL conference. His findings suggest that market inequality has indeed fallen since the mid-1990s, but that the tax and transfer systems also reduce inequality by a lesser amount than they did in the 1990s. The net result is that post-tax/transfer inequality is higher now than in the mid-1990s.