But in fact inequality aversion is sorta measurable – mostly through observed behaviour in experiments, but also by the odd natural experiment. There’s also a strand of argument that we can derive it from the revealed preference of the electorate in the form of the actual tax and welfare systems they vote for, though I’m dubious of that approach myself – there’s far too much historical contingency, combined with status quo bias, in real life systems.

I wasn’t having difficulty understanding what inequality aversion actually was. It’s fairly self-evident. What I was interested in was how you would measure it in a given society. Andrew Leigh doesn’t know either, even though some of the optimal taxation literature factors the concept in as a variable. If optimal taxation formulae are to be meaningful, you would imagine that this concept needs to be capable of measurement.

Within societies, of course, it’s relative income. Or as a friend of mine says “happiness is earning a thousand dollars a year more than your brother-in-law”.

Inequality aversion is not a difficult concept, even if it does lead to mathematically murky waters. Imagine that God has just created you de novo. He tells you that:

- He’s going to get you to throw a dice to determine your whereabouts in the social scale (you have to do it rather than him because his omniscience would mess it up).

But before that you have to choose which society you prefer to live in – a rich and unequal one or a poorer but more equal one.

Inequality aversion is just a measure of which you’d choose.

If you bothered to read my post, instead of making patently stupid debating points, you would discover that it wasn’t about either the subject matter of Kim’s post or McConvill’s. They were simply “hooks”

At first sight, the embrace of happiness by relatively intelligent members of Britain’s political elite makes little sense. You don’t need a PhD in political science to know that if ‘you can’t buy happiness’, then you certainly can’t produce it through legislation.

And, as it happens, it is sometimes realised through our work. Rather than causing us to be unhappy, hard, purposeful work is often the means through which we cultivate our own sense of happiness.

Because genuine happiness is experienced through the interaction of the individual with the challenges thrown up by life.

If he wasn’t out there writing ridiculous op/eds and starting 5 online law reviews, you wouldn’t.

If you bothered to read my post, instead of making patently stupid debating points, you would discover that it wasn’t about either the subject matter of Kim’s post or McConvill’s. They were simply “hooks” to lead into a more serious discussion about happiness research.

That isn’t to suggest that blog posts should always be serious and worthy, or that trivial topics shouldn’t be covered. But tit-for-tat trivial, ad hominem posts each accompanied by a chorus of nasty comments, are not IMO to be admired.

Nevertheless, I DID think that both your primary post and McConvill’s (which was essentially a whinge about Mark B’s allegedly obsessive focus on him) had somewhat trivial and self-referential subject matter.

So why post on it?

I don’t know that McConvill’s work warrants too much seriousness in evaluation in comments boxes. You’ve done a great job in your post of demonstrating how poor his scholarship is.

But don’t forget the nostrum from Andrew Norton you yourself quote!

I wasn’t having a go at your post per se, but rather at the quality of the comments to both your post and McConvill’s. In both cases most were puerile in the extreme (although “Bill Posters” was obviously amused), and many of the comments were quite ill-tempered to boot. Nevertheless, I DID think that both your primary post and McConvill’s (which was essentially a whinge about Mark B’s allegedly obsessive focus on him) had somewhat trivial and self-referential subject matter.

I note that you say that “you’d like to say something positive” about McConvill, then go on to say only negative things.

Unless I’m missing something.

Since you yourself recognise that he’s attention-seeking, why have a go at my post when you’re also feeding the McConvill commentery industry?

OTO the literature on optimal taxation is so complex and mathematical that I’m afraid I have Buckley’s chance of understanding it.

Regarding the use of happiness data to draw conclusions about optimal tax rates, one would of course also want to cite Andrew Oswald’s paper, “On the Common Claim that Happiness Equations Demonstrate Diminishing Marginal Utility of Income” (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/concavity2005.pdf), as well as the huge, complex, and important literature on optimal taxation.

Accordingly, I regret that I won’t be able to read this piece :)

unbelievably trivial but nasty spat

No sense of humour today Ken?

That’s a fair call. We chose this material for the article because we thought it gave a clear explanation of the issues for an audience that probably hadn’t been exposed to the literature before.

I’ve delved into more research happiness literature in my books “The False Promise of Pay for Performance” (2005) and “Shareholder Participation in the Corporation: A New Perspective” (2006).

I appreciate your analysis.