> Compared to what? Quality of life? Median income per-person? Longevity?
Whatever. If the argument is that transparency of income inevitably leads to some kind catastrophy then it's your burden to explain why it didn't lead to any catastrophy in Norway. And that's impossible since there are so many factors at play as you noticed that you can't really convlusively prove that income transparency is not benign or even beneficial by itself.
> Many companies today don’t publish or try to protect their IP because the act of publishing it makes it open to reverse engineering.
That's true. Because for them it's not worth it. You could make it worth it for them if you strengthened the external incentive. For example let products on the market only if details of their operation are properly documented and published. We are doing something like that about impotrant products like food which composition must be revealed.
You want to keep your secret ingredients in your food a secret? Sure, but you need to sell it in some other country. We could be doing that about all products which would offer immense consumer protections.
> Do you know of any country or even company for that matter that is completely open about all trade secrets, strategic plans, hiring decisions, or other business related activities? Can I see the CEO’s calendar, or read their internal chat messages or email?
Unfortunately not, but there are some rules about public companies that let you get a lot of very enlightening information about them. I really see no downside to extending those rules to all companies and extending the scope of those rules as much as possible. Imagine how many environmental and health disasters could be avoided.
> Someone has to be first. Why not you?
Because it doesn't work like that. If I do it, it doesn't improve probability of others doing it. It might even lower it because being moral among a morals puts me at visible disadvantage. And benefits of transparency grows with the number of transparent entities.
It's the same argument as with millionaires whi want higher taxation on millionaires. Why they don't just tax themselves voluntarily? Because others wouldn't follow and it's not about taxing them and putting themselves at disadvantage. It's about taxing all, so that the poor can benefit but it's still fair game between the rich.
> I wouldn’t say I’m surprised, but it undermines your strong moral claims around transparency in my view.
I never claimed to be a moral person myself. I won't do things I consider moral and benefit to society if they put me at a disadvantage. But that doesn't make me not see that those things in fact are moral and would benefit the society if they were enforced on everybody equally including me.
Whatever. If the argument is that transparency of income inevitably leads to some kind catastrophy then it's your burden to explain why it didn't lead to any catastrophy in Norway. And that's impossible since there are so many factors at play as you noticed that you can't really convlusively prove that income transparency is not benign or even beneficial by itself.
> Many companies today don’t publish or try to protect their IP because the act of publishing it makes it open to reverse engineering.
That's true. Because for them it's not worth it. You could make it worth it for them if you strengthened the external incentive. For example let products on the market only if details of their operation are properly documented and published. We are doing something like that about impotrant products like food which composition must be revealed.
You want to keep your secret ingredients in your food a secret? Sure, but you need to sell it in some other country. We could be doing that about all products which would offer immense consumer protections.
> Do you know of any country or even company for that matter that is completely open about all trade secrets, strategic plans, hiring decisions, or other business related activities? Can I see the CEO’s calendar, or read their internal chat messages or email?
Unfortunately not, but there are some rules about public companies that let you get a lot of very enlightening information about them. I really see no downside to extending those rules to all companies and extending the scope of those rules as much as possible. Imagine how many environmental and health disasters could be avoided.
> Someone has to be first. Why not you?
Because it doesn't work like that. If I do it, it doesn't improve probability of others doing it. It might even lower it because being moral among a morals puts me at visible disadvantage. And benefits of transparency grows with the number of transparent entities.
It's the same argument as with millionaires whi want higher taxation on millionaires. Why they don't just tax themselves voluntarily? Because others wouldn't follow and it's not about taxing them and putting themselves at disadvantage. It's about taxing all, so that the poor can benefit but it's still fair game between the rich.
> I wouldn’t say I’m surprised, but it undermines your strong moral claims around transparency in my view.
I never claimed to be a moral person myself. I won't do things I consider moral and benefit to society if they put me at a disadvantage. But that doesn't make me not see that those things in fact are moral and would benefit the society if they were enforced on everybody equally including me.