Citing Doug Mackenzie <[log in to unmask]>:  
"The problem you speak of would therefore depend upon not only the objective  
facts (the actual measured inquality) but also the subjective interpretion of  
these acts (the prevailing ideological mindset) which determines whether or not  
inquality is acceptable. To say that inequality generates resentment and stress  
assumes a prevailing ideology or mindset whereby the perceived source of the  
existing inequality is illegitimate."  
  
I believe this is an interesting remark. Sometimes researchers tend to  
'describe' social injustices or social advances in order to 'prove' that, let's  
say capitalism, is a good or a bad thing. Off course this is a case of  
intellectual 'fraude', where the explanans gets confused with the explanandum.  
Pointing out the consequences does not prove the cause, you simply assume it to  
be so. Saying that inequality changes over time is one thing, linking this to  
processes of economic growth (see Kuznets) or exploitation (from Marx to  
Pr�bisch) is a whole other story. In any case, it is a question that deserves  
our attention, along with the study of the evolution of poverty. Not because the  
researcher should 'determine that inequality is unacceptable', but because  
inequality in a society draws lines of conflict that can become potentially very  
explosive (a point on which the reality of inequality poses itself to the  
researchers, whether they deem inequality to be unacceptable or not). History,  
through different revolutions as Doug Mackenzie points out, has already made  
this clear. The questions then are:  
1. What causes income inequality?  
2. How much inequality can a given society in time and space handle?  
3. Are the historical examples of 'rioting inequality' really "unique historical  
episodes"? Or could inequality still lead to the revolting of the have-nots?  
Looking at the situations in heavily unequal settings as the world cities of Rio  
de Janeiro or Sao Paulo, I would not dare to say that we should presume history  
to be over in this matter.  
  
  
Jan-Frederik Abbeloos