Thinking Clearly about Economic Inequality (Policy Analysis) 41%

By Alex Beehler44%

7/14/2009, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and False Dilemma, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.9% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 618 faulty-reasoning hits from 433 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.6% and a BS Rank of 41% (9,490 of 15,985 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.40% of the article peer group.

Recent discussions of economic inequality, 
marked by a lack of clarity and care, have confused 
the public about the meaning and moral 
significance of rising income inequality. 
Income 
statistics paint a misleading picture of real standards 
of living and real economic inequality. 
Several strands of evidence about real standards 
of living suggest a very different picture of the 
trends in economic inequality. 
In any case, the 
dispersion of incomes at any given time has, at 
best, a tenuous connection to human welfare or 
social justice. 
The pattern of incomes is affected 
by both morally desirable and undesirable mechanisms. 
When injustice or wrongdoing increases 
income inequality, the problem is the original 
malign cause, not the resulting inequality. 
Many 
thinkers mistake national populations for “society” 
and thereby obscure the real story about the 
effects of trade and immigration on welfare, 
equality, and justice. 
There is little evidence that 
high levels of income inequality lead down a slippery 
slope to the destruction of democracy and 
rule by the rich. 
The unequal political voice of the 
poor can be addressed only through policies that 
actually work to fight poverty and improve education. 
Income inequality is a dangerous distraction 
from the real problems: poverty, lack of economic 
opportunity, and systemic injustice.Recent discussions of economic inequality, 
marked by a lack of clarity and care, have confused 
the public about the meaning and moral 
significance of rising income inequality. 
Income 
statistics paint a misleading picture of real standards 
of living and real economic inequality. 
Several strands of evidence about real standards 
of living suggest a very different picture of the 
trends in economic inequality. 
In any case, the 
dispersion of incomes at any given time has, at 
best, a tenuous connection to human welfare or 
social justice. 
The pattern of incomes is affected 
by both morally desirable and undesirable mechanisms. 
When injustice or wrongdoing increases 
income inequality, the problem is the original 
malign cause, not the resulting inequality. 
Many 
thinkers mistake national populations for “society” 
and thereby obscure the real story about the 
effects of trade and immigration on welfare, 
equality, and justice. 
There is little evidence that 
high levels of income inequality lead down a slippery 
slope to the destruction of democracy and 
rule by the rich. 
The unequal political voice of the 
poor can be addressed only through policies that 
actually work to fight poverty and improve education. 
Income inequality is a dangerous distraction 
from the real problems: poverty, lack of economic 
opportunity, and systemic injustice. 
Will Wilkinson is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and editor of Cato Unbound. 
Confirmation Bias
9.7%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
4.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
2.8%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
3.7%
Framing Effect
1.6%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
1.8%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
3.7%
Negativity Bias
18.9%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
3.2%
Straw Man
2.8%
Appeal to Authority
3.5%
False Dilemma
9.7%
Slippery Slope
7.4%
Circular Reasoning
3.7%
Hasty Generalization
3.7%
Red Herring
7.4%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
7.9%
Begging the Question
2.3%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
3.2%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
2.3%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
8.3%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
21.9%
Indoctrination
9%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

433 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.