Jan-Frederik Abbeloos wrote: 'In his post James Ahiakpor defends the vision that "governments should worry about absolute poverty rather than inequality of incomes." The arguments he uses are classic. Who would object to the rich getting richer when the poor get richer too? Simple, only sentimental researchers that play too much on emotions and jealous people that envy their wealthier fellow men. There are however more valid arguments that do justify that we pay attention to the problem of income inequality. At this point I would like to refer to the note by Branko Milanovic, "Why we all do care about inequality (but are loath to admit it)" [http://ssrn.com/abstract=530363]. In this short note Milanovic, who is chief economist of the World Bank's Development Research Group, puts forth one central remark: "The key point is that income of others enters our own utility function. And once we allow for it, inequality affects our own welfare and the arguments regarding irrelevance of inequality come to naught." In my opinion, Milanovic illustrates this view in a provocative but convincing matter. A lot of research on this point has also been performed by Richard Easterlin. A very interesting article of his in this discussion is "Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all?" [Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 27 (1995) 35-47].' In the first place I'd like to note that I'm not the first to have noted the tendency of people who have less tend to envy those who have more. Moses would not have brought back from the mountain one of the items in the ten commandments (or suggestions?), "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's property," if this were not part of human nature. Adam Smith put it this way: "The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his property. It is only only under the shelter of the civil magistrate ... [the rest of the quote I gave yesterday] The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government." Second point: Those who feel bad about the destitution of others give alms or donations -- private charity. One doesn't even have to be rich to do that. But most people resist handing over their wealth or incomes to the state to redistribute to others less well off. They include even people who would claim to be working on behalf of the poor: Income tax preparers (at least in the United States) get clients from a wide spectrum of ideological leanings, all trying to minimize their tax liabilities. In the end, the rich give more [in absolute dollar amounts] than the less well-off to charity. Third point, and here I bring in the contributions of Matt Forstater and Michael Perelman: Happiness is a state of mind. Thus, a rich person can be miserable whiles a poor person would be "happy," depending upon how each reacts to their life's circumstances. Even the same person experiences different degrees of "happiness" at different times, without any change in their levels of income or wealth. The same music played over and over again soon ceases to bring pleasure, just as the same type of meal. Thus, I think those who resort to happiness studies as a means of arguing state-sponsored egalitarianism are on rather "thin ice." This is why people should not mix up or confuse happiness with material well-being. Recall the adage, money doesn't buy happiness! Fourth point: Life expectancy tends to be positively correlated with per capita income across countries. Meier and Rauch (2005), "Leading Issues in Economic Development" (Exhibit I.A.2) has data confirming this. And a little bit of introspection should anticipate the outcome. When people have more income to purchase food, clothing, education, and healthcare, they are more likely to create the conditions for their children's survival. And in adulthood, higher incomes enable people to purchase those things that sustain longer life. I don't know which data Michael refers to in which Sri Lanka has a higher life expectancy than South Korea. The data in Meier and Rauch state otherwise: 72 years for Sri Lanka and 75 years for the Rep. of Korea in 2001. Chile, with a much worse index of inequality (56.7) than Sri Lanka (34.4), has a higher life expectancy (76 years) than Sri Lanka. Finally, it easy to make too much of life expectancy. What is the point of living long, if in misery or destitution? Thus, life expectancy in Cuba is 77 years, the same as in the U.S., but where would people rather live? People risk their lives constantly to escape Cuba. So, I appreciate the citation from Milanovic, the chief economist at the World Bank's Development Research Group. But I don't think his argument is well-founded. I may cite him in my class, but only to illustrate how some analysts confuse issues. Historians of economic thought shouldn't forget what became the fate of Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism or Felicific Calculus as guide to public policy. James Ahiakpor