According to John Rawls, any rational person would derive this principle from the "original position." They would organize society in a manner that creates the greatest possible freedom and the greatest possible opportunity They would distribute resources with absolute equality They would prohibit any redistribution of resources, including taxation None of the above
Added by Babyamiyumi 1.
Close
Step 1
In the original position, individuals do not know anything about their personal characteristics or social status. They are behind a "veil of ignorance" and are tasked with determining the principles that should govern their society. Rawls argues that rational Show more…
Show all steps
Your feedback will help us improve your experience
Yujie Wang and 75 other Psychology educators are ready to help you.
Ask a new question
Labs
Want to see this concept in action?
Explore this concept interactively to see how it behaves as you change inputs.
Key Concepts
Recommended Videos
Ricardian Equivalence: How does taking into account the government budget constraint affect the way we should think of the effects of deficits on output? One extreme view is that once the government budget constraint is taken into account, neither deficits nor debt have an effect on economic activity! This argument is known as the Ricardian equivalence proposition. David Ricardo, a nineteenth century English economist, was the first to articulate its logic. His argument was further developed and given prominence in the 1970s by Robert Barro. For this reason, the argument is also known as the Ricardo-Barro proposition. The best way to understand the logic of the proposition is to use an example of tax changes: Suppose that the government decreases taxes by 1 this year. And as it does so, it announces that, to repay the debt, it will increase taxes by (1+r) next year. What will be the effect of the initial tax cut on consumption? One possible answer is: No effect at all. Why? Because consumers realize that the tax cut is not much of a gift: Lower taxes this year are exactly offset, in present value, by higher taxes next year. Put another way, their human wealth—the present value of after-tax labor income—is unaffected. Current taxes go down by 1, but the present value of next year's taxes goes up by (1+r)/(1+r) = 1, and the net effect of the two changes is exactly equal to zero. Another way of coming to the same answer—this time looking at saving rather than looking at consumption—is as follows: To say that consumers do not change their consumption in response to the tax cut is the same as saying that private saving increases one-for-one with the deficit. So the Ricardian equivalence proposition says that if a government finances a given path of spending through deficits, private saving will increase one-for-one with the decrease in public saving, leaving total saving unchanged. The total amount left for investment will not be affected. Over time, the mechanics of the government budget constraint imply that government debt will increase. But this increase will not come at the expense of capital accumulation. Under the Ricardian equivalence proposition, a long sequence of deficits and the associated increase in government debt are no cause for worry. As the government is dissaving, the argument goes, people are saving more in anticipation. Explain.
Breanna O.
Explain whether or not you agree with the premise of the Ricardian equivalence theory that rational people might reason: "Well, a higher budget deficit (surplus) means that I'm just going to owe more (less) taxes in the future to pay off all that government borrowing, so I'll start saving (spending) now." Why or why not?
"To achieve an efficient allocation, lump-sum taxes on consumers' endowments and per unit taxes on the prices of goods are equivalent." Do you agree with this assertion? Explain, using the welfare theorems in your arguments
Nick J.
Recommended Textbooks
Psychology Openstax
Myers' Psychology for AP
Psychology
Transcript
Watch the video solution with this free unlock.
EMAIL
PASSWORD