But even if, even if it didn't happen, I, I would still affirm this.
So he's just sort of putting this out there to kind of blunt the criticism, but
it, you know, who, who, says there are these Keynesian multiplier effect?
And actually, also, if that were true, it
makes the differences between Rawls' idea and utilitarianism much less interesting.
Because if, if this chain connection, this trickle up was really true,
then everything that was Rawls preferred would also be utilitarian preferred and
there would be much less to choose between them.
>> Would that mean basically that this would be a way to have
only middle class up?
So basically lower middle class, upper middle class, in,
in that way we'd basically tackle poverty in the society and we just have like-
>> Well- >> This better off [LAUGH]?
>> Well he's trying to, he's trying to tell that happy story.
He's trying to say, if we help the people at the bottom,
everybody this rising tide will lift all boats.
Kind of trickle up.
Of course, the, the problem is that it's the easiest case.
And you, you don't test arguments by looking at the easiest case.
The harder cases are, what if the way you helped the people at
the bottom came at a big, at the cost of a big hit to the middle class, right?
And then again, Rawls is going to say, well I'm, I'm assuming the pe,
the condition of the people at the bottom is potentially so bad that you will be so
risk averse that you can't afford to assume you're going to be
the middle class person who takes the hit.
But you're going to assume you're going to be the person at the bottom.
And it has the implication though, that for
instance, if you, it, it can be compatible with very big inequalities.
So, if you think about the, the Regan
tax cuts in the early 1980s, basically they gave a little bit of benefit
to the people at the bottom and a huge benefit to the people at the top, right?
But since from Rawls' point of view, all you are, all you look at is what happened
to the people at the bottom, you could imagine massive transfers of
wealth from the middle class to the top and tiny increases at the bottom.
And it would be fine with Rawls.
So you can generate odd outcomes with this
principle that make Rawls look a little bit silly.
But in his defense, what, what he would say is, look, and
what he does say is, I'm not talking about every marginal policy choice.
I'm talking about the basic structure of society.
The basic institutions of society.
These are not, this is not a guide for, for the next policy debate.
It's a guide for
thinking about what are the basic guarantees we should put in place.
And I'm saying,
the test should be how well it does from the perspective of people at the bottom.
So, if trickle down turned out to be true, if the best way to help
the people at the bottom is to have an unregulated market economy, I, John Rawls,
wouldn't be against it, okay?
And so let's compare his principle to the, the others we've talked about so
far in the course.