A few brief thoughts on today's posts. I am strongly sympathetic to John Gelles's position with regard to the regulation of conspicuous consumption. Neighborhoods have a right to impose community standards, effectively requiring those who want to flaunt their wealth to do so in some other place. In the case of reservations, such regulation would force a choice between the mansion and the community, which would at least be a small step in the right driection. It also seems clear to me, though, that one cannot have an economy based on casinos on the one hand and a social ethic that deplores demoralizing displays of wealth on the other.
Casinos are all about small chances for big gains.
The extended discussion on taxonomic categories seems to be moving in a very constructive direction. Had the data given me different patterns, I would have happily chosen a different labeling scheme. One interesting feature of this approach is that it implies one should remain flexible in the face of evidence collected about other parts of the economy or at the international level. All categories have fuzzy boundaries, or to put it another way, the economy is fractal. It seems to me useful to distinguish between forms of pay that represent ownership shares, and that are therefore claims on wealth and on the increase in the valuation of the firm, and forms of pay that are deductions from revenue.