That is because the economic data we have is that it doesn't take much income gain to make huge strides in well-being.
Give the average person an extra $10,000 per year and you get a massive uptick in health, education and so forth.
Give those with incomes of $250,000 per year, have almost no appreciable gain in well-being.
The marginal benefit of each additional dollar vanishes to next to nothing at some point. This is why progressive taxation is both desirable and ethical.
That chart shows that the rich have ac ulated wealth at a greater rate than the not-rich. The chart does not show that the rich have ac ulated wealth at the expense of the not-rich -- or -- that wealth is zero-sum. Your bald assertions don't prove that fact either. That's why your chart is irrelevant to this conversation.
I wasn't complaining about anything either ... I just said Epstein was responding to a specific claim.
You're always quick to point out ad homs and specious arguments. I'd suggest taking a look at your post and doing some soul-searching ...
While that answer is percolating, "yes" is too simple an answer.
Better:
"yes, but..." with a lot of qualifiers.
Like everything, taxation and government represents tradeoffs. Sometimes you do not get an obvious good/bad choice, but are forced by reality to choose between bad/less bad.
Everything is relative. Compared to a homeless guy you are extremely wealthy. If he puts a knife to your throat and takes your wallet because you clearly have hundreds if not thousands times more wealth than he does, is that moral?
I generally respond with the same level of respect I am given, young man. Sorry you seem to have missed that.
No, it is clearly not.
Drawing an equivalence between that action and that of taxation, as you are probably implying, is a bit of a stretch.
Insinuating that you're "drinking the koolaid" is clearly equivalent to saying some is ty at their job.
But I don't even care - you didn't bother answering my substantive questions - how is wealth zero sum and how does the chart prove that fact?
A bit of a stretch? That has to be one the dumbest justifications I have ever heard.
Why does everyone NOT have an equal right to redeem the benefits of economic growth?
It seems to me that the goal of any economic system is to maximize overall well-being of its participants.
The chart shows that, because if you look at the period before it, income gains were not quite to lop-sidedly given to the top 1%.
Is it?
Lets say that there are you and 5 homeless guys on the street.
All six of you vote whether or not they should take your money.
The vote is 5 to 1 to take your money, because you clearly have thousands of times as much wealth as they do..
Is this moral?
Overall wealth is finite and measurable.
Income is, generally speaking, a measure of the increase in wealth.
Income is finite and measureable.
If an economy as a whole increases wealth by 100, then the economic system divides that according to that system.
We have chosen a system where most of that increase benefits 400 people out of 300,000,000.
Not sure how much easier I can make it.
Yes. From an overall group standpoint, this is a very moral action.
I disagree with this on a theoretical level. While "money" may not be finite, wealth certainly is because it is by it's very nature a relative term.
Does having $1,000,000 dollars make you wealthy? How about 1 million euros? Or ten galictaspherons?
Wealth is what you have relative to everyone else, and by it's very nature requires inequality. Depending on what our objectives are, that inequality is important for the progress of a society: it gives people incentives to innovate, work harder, etc. In a pure socialistic system, there is complete equality and thus no wealth. However, just as in a case where the lack of inequality and wealth is harmful to a society, a too-narrow concentration of wealth and increased inequality with very little economic mobility is equally harmful to a society.
A big problem I have with people discussing "ideal solutions" is that the problem and/or objective to which the solution tries to deal with has never been defined, or even whispered about. It's akin to a bunch of people walking around shouting out random numbers to answer a math problem we haven't been made aware of.
Last edited by scott; 10-28-2011 at 11:48 AM.
So you are saying that the 99% taking the 1%'s accrued wealth by force is moral?
What if it is the 51% taking the 49%'s wealth by force?
still moral?
I never said you were ty at your job, that I can remember.
To be 100% clear:
I think you can be a bit rude and hot-headed, as you let this stuff get you riled up (not exactly a bad thing in my book). I think the kinds of things you argue when talking about this subject ultimately are immoral.
There's no equal right because you get what you put in. In any capitalistic system, there will be winners and losers. The losers shouldn't be en led to as much as the winners simply because they're a part of the system. If my company has a good idea, and turns a profit, should a flailing company be en led to my profits because both en ies have an equal right to my company's growth?
That's great. I disagree
Incorrect. That chart shows that the rate at which the 1% ac ulated wealth grew at a greater rate than any other cohort. It does not indicate that the 1%'s wealth was ac ulated at the expense of any cohort. You're projecting your assumptions into the chart (i.e. that economic growth is some type of community property) and then claiming that chart is proof.
Let me turn that around.
Is the 400/300,000,000 % taking most of the wealth by force moral?
it's not by force.
HUGE difference.
This is 100% correct.
But then you go and contradict yourself. All wealth is ac ulated at the expense of others... that's what "there will be winners and losers" means.Incorrect. That chart shows that the rate at which the 1% ac ulated wealth grew at a greater rate than any other cohort. It does not indicate that the 1%'s wealth was ac ulated at the expense of any cohort. You're projecting your assumptions into the chart (i.e. that economic growth is some type of community property) and then claiming that chart is proof.
Why is wealth finite?
So when the economy, as a whole, grows, everyone is en led to a piece of the action? We don't care about what they've done in that system to make it grow (or shrink)?
I have provided my interpretation of that data, yes.
The chart itself is proof of nothing more than what it says.
The defintion of overall economic growth is that it is community property. We chose a system by which that is divided. Some are rewarded more than others.
Profit motive is a good thing, and generally provides a mechanism that has, up until recently, provided for solid gains in human well-being.
What I'm not saying - and why I think we're in agreement - is this: on a transaction-to-transaction basis, there will be winners and losers. However, those losers still have the opportunity to ac ulate wealth on other deals. In other words, on an individualized basis profit might be zero-sum. However, aggregated, wealth is not zero-sum because of the opportunities the "losers" have to make their cash back.
And one other thing - my point was just to show that the chart doesn't do the work that RG thinks it does. It does not, in any way demonstrate, that the rich have profited at the expense of the poor. Quite the contrary, it shows that both have ac ulated wealth, albeit at different rates.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
