Path Dependence
From the Harvard Business Review article, Wealth Happens:
The finding suggests that the basic inequality in wealth distribution seen in most societies may have little to do with differences in the backgrounds and talents of their citizens. Rather, the disparity appears to be something akin to a law of economic life that emerges naturally as an organizational feature of a network.
... random returns on investment drive a counterbalancing rich-get-richer phenomenon. Even if everyone starts out equal, differences in investment luck will cause some people to start to ac ulate more wealth than others. Those who are lucky will tend to invest more and so have a chance to make greater gains still. Hence, a string of positive returns builds a person's wealth not merely by addition but by multiplication, as each subsequent gain grows ever bigger. This is enough, even in a world of equals where returns on investment are entirely random, to stir up huge wealth disparities in the population.
----------------------------
http://www.exponentialimprovement.co...disprove.shtml
---------------------------------
It is a natural dynamic. What he describes is known in system dynamics as "path dependence" and in systems thinking as the "Success to the Successful" archetype.
Seeing this natural process has led "conservatives" to believe that poverty is part of the "eternal order of things ... which never can be removed by legislation."
But that is not true; we need not condemn millions to poverty through no fault of their own. Economic "conservatives" do not want policies that avoid extreme poverty; they should have the courage to admit that's what they want.
This is not to deny that some individuals are largely responsible for their own problems. It's just that systems effects are way more powerful than they're given credit for being ... and libertarians deny systems effects even exist.
Many are told to take personal responsibility for their addictions that have driven them into poverty. But addiction is a human affliction, a trap that can snare almost anyone in one way or another.
In fact, our entire economic system is addicted to the quick fix. Addiction to growth, described in the Growth Facts of Life, has driven California to financial ruin and Colorado has followed in its path with its Proposition 13-like TABOR.
The "addiction to growth" dynamic explained: Growth with insufficient taxes brings in some immediate income, but not enough to cover long-term infrastructure costs as people move into an area. Those addicted to growth advocate even more growth to increase the tax base. But this only adds to the infrastructure backlog over the long-term.
Folks, such "economic growth" is what libertarians and other economic "conservatives" love, but it's the same structure as addiction to drugs, which they deplore as an individual weakness for which individuals must take "personal responsibility."
But they will not take personal responsibility for their policies creating infrastructure backlogs. No, they blame the financial problems in California on liberals who promote environmental protection that increases costs and makes the region less compe ive. But environmental pollution is a redistribution of the costs of doing business onto the public; it's socialism on the cost-side -- a redistribution that should not be allowed.
We can change the dynamic to counteract some of the inequality. This can be done
- With progressive income taxation,
- by taxing capital gains and dividends at least at the rate that income is taxed (why discourage work relative to investment),
- by not stealing regressive Social Security taxes for use in the general fund, and
- by reducing regressive sales taxes.
For an experiential proof of path dependence, one only need play the game, Monopoly. In this game it's not necessarily the most intelligent or hard-working who wins; it can simply be the person who goes first, thereby getting ahead, and because of path dependence thereby getting even further ahead. On Monopoly strategy:
Monopoly involves a portion of luck, with the roll of the dice determining whether a player gets to own key properties or lands on squares with high rents. Even the initial misfortune of going last is a significant disadvantage because one is more likely to land on property which has already been bought and therefore be forced to pay rent instead of having an opportunity to buy unowned property.
by Bob Powell, 3/28/09
Starting equal; and LUCK is the biggest factor?
Bull. .
And the Monopoly explanation? More. Bull. .
And, btw, what is our income tax system if not progressive?
Why don't we just have the richest guy pay ALL the taxes; will that be progressive enough for you?
The lmao smiley. Par for the course, and fully expected.
Your inability to refute arguments with anything more continues it's streak unabated.
The lmao smiley. Par for the course, and fully expected.
Your inability to refute arguments with anything more continues it's streak unabated.
Gotta go. I just lucked out and became super wealthy.
I noticed you have not bothered to refute the logic or assertions of the OP.
"the richest guy" paying all the taxes would be unworkable, and no one is suggesting it.
I am fine with a progressive income tax though. If you win the capitalism lottery, you should expect to pay into the system that created your winnings.
Gotta go. I just lucked out and became super wealthy.
I think most investors who become wealthy put no more thought into their investments that your typical quick-pick lotto winner.
The Rules of the Game
The path dependence dynamic accelerates when, as in the U.S., investment returns (capital gains and dividends) are taxed less than wages. Why would that be? The argument is that taxes discourage "investment" (which is often not investment at all, but speculation or gambling). However, why have higher taxes on wages to discourage work even more than investment?
The answer: The "Rules of the Game" are fixed. The old saying, "He who has the gold rules." is true. John Sterman describes this self-reinforcing feedback process in Business Dynamics, Systems Thinking for a Complex World:
The "Rules of the Game" evolve to favor those with wealth & power to give them even more wealth & power.
The larger and more successful an organization, the more it can influence the ins utional and political context in which it operates. Large organizations can change the rules of the game in their favor, leading to still more success-and more power. [The Figure at right] shows the resulting golden rule loop R1].The golden rule loop manifests in many forms. Through campaign contributions and lobbying, large firms and their trade associations can shape legislation and public policy to give them favorable tax treatment, subsidies for their activities, protection for their markets, price guarantees, and exemptions from liability.
Through overlapping boards, the revolving door between industry and government, and control of media outlets, influential and powerful organizations gain even more influence and power. In nations without a tradition of democratic government, these loops lead to self-perpetuating oligarchies where a tightly knit elite controls a huge share of the nation's wealth and income while the vast majority of people remain impoverished (e.g., the Philippines under Marcos, Indonesia under Suharto, and countless others). T
he elite further consolidates its control by subsidizing the military and secret police and buying high-tech weaponry and technical assistance from the developed world to keep the restive masses in check. Even in nations with strong democratic traditions these positive loops can overwhelm the checks and balances designed to ensure government of, by, and for the people.
For more on how the system is biased toward the wealthy: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston (2007).
I've lost all hope of trying to convince such ideologues. No amount of facts and logic will suffice to penetrate such strong ideological blindness. The worldview that sees only individuals, in which they've invested so much, would collapse.
I think most investors who become wealthy put no more thought into their investments that your typical quick-pick lotto winner.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167316
Then go back to the post above this one.
Damn, RG is turning into boutons.
I just think it in bent to balance Yoni/Parker occassionally.
An occasional ideological handgrenade is fun to toss. Mea culpa.
I agree with that.
Luck is like prayers.
Putting in the work is the only thing that changes anything.
No doubt making money is much easier if you already have money.
Disagree. Hard work does not always equate to wealth.
I think it's reasonable to say that some people make money through hard work, some by luck, and most by a combination of both factors.
Definitely.
As the super-wealthy have been sucking in more wealth since Repugs/conservatives got their Class War rolling with St Ronnie, income mobility has declined for the 30 years.
In short, income mobility is falling faster at the bottom of the ladder than at the top. And the poorer you get, the more likely you’re going to stay that way.
http://www.bnet.com/blog/financial-b...eam-fades/1160
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2009/wp0907.pdf
============
So if you're born high, you usually do well.
If you born low, you tend to stay low, more and more.
As the VRWC/corporate war on employees, unions continues to be won, winner take all, employees and household income has stagnated for 30 years.
Interesting to go through the old subscribed threads.The Rules of the Game
The path dependence dynamic accelerates when, as in the U.S., investment returns (capital gains and dividends) are taxed less than wages. Why would that be? The argument is that taxes discourage "investment" (which is often not investment at all, but speculation or gambling). However, why have higher taxes on wages to discourage work even more than investment?
The answer: The "Rules of the Game" are fixed. The old saying, "He who has the gold rules." is true. John Sterman describes this self-reinforcing feedback process in Business Dynamics, Systems Thinking for a Complex World:
The "Rules of the Game" evolve to favor those with wealth & power to give them even more wealth & power.
The larger and more successful an organization, the more it can influence the ins utional and political context in which it operates. Large organizations can change the rules of the game in their favor, leading to still more success-and more power. [The Figure at right] shows the resulting golden rule loop R1].The golden rule loop manifests in many forms. Through campaign contributions and lobbying, large firms and their trade associations can shape legislation and public policy to give them favorable tax treatment, subsidies for their activities, protection for their markets, price guarantees, and exemptions from liability.
Through overlapping boards, the revolving door between industry and government, and control of media outlets, influential and powerful organizations gain even more influence and power. In nations without a tradition of democratic government, these loops lead to self-perpetuating oligarchies where a tightly knit elite controls a huge share of the nation's wealth and income while the vast majority of people remain impoverished (e.g., the Philippines under Marcos, Indonesia under Suharto, and countless others). T
he elite further consolidates its control by subsidizing the military and secret police and buying high-tech weaponry and technical assistance from the developed world to keep the restive masses in check. Even in nations with strong democratic traditions these positive loops can overwhelm the checks and balances designed to ensure government of, by, and for the people.
For more on how the system is biased toward the wealthy: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston (2007).
I've lost all hope of trying to convince such ideologues. No amount of facts and logic will suffice to penetrate such strong ideological blindness. The worldview that sees only individuals, in which they've invested so much, would collapse.
Yeah...dont know how I missed this one.
'Bloomberg Markets' Magazine Reveals Hidden Billionaires
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/05/243150...n-billionaires
transcript not yet posted.
heard on NPR, one comment was that about 25% of world's billionaires are inherited wealth, 75% are self-made.
Another was that they are intelligent, driven, ruthless "almost to a fault". I don't know how that "almost" got in there.
If it did, the people with 2 or three jobs would be richer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
