Reply With Quote
Dishonesty is a form of disrespect, in my book. Half-truths might be considered accidental or simple ignorance if isolated, but after years of such things, the pattern to deceive becomes fairly clear, troll boy.
That's the most convoluted way of looking at the economy I've ever heard of. You're saying that we should view total economic growth as a big national unit of production - and then that unit is cut up and divided amongst the winners and losers?
Dishonesty is a form of disrespect, in my book. Half-truths might be considered accidental or simple ignorance if isolated, but after years of such things, the pattern to deceive becomes fairly clear, troll boy.
Actually, I don't think that chart shows either of those things. It shows that everyone has more dollarsy, some have ac ulated more faster than others. But dollars are not in-and-of-themselves measures of wealth (going back to my theoretical view of what wealth is).
I equivocated dollars with wealth. My bad.
As I said before, wealth is finite. There is a measureable end to it.
It is NOT fixed and immutable. Overall wealth changes over time.
I would say the answer to your second question is yes, everyone is en led to a piece of any new wealth created. Whoever is most responsible for that new wealth should be given a larger share though.
What is your answer to that question?
I agree on a transaction level basis, but disagree on your intrepretation of the aggregate. Imagine a two-person society with just you and me. Only one of us can acquire "wealth" and be "rich" and it necessitates that the other be "poor".
Having more stuff doesn't make you wealthy. Having more stuff than everyone else does.
I disagree here too. In my view, which I proudly indoctrinate all my students with, Wealth can neither be created or destroyed.
With that said, if we want to define "wealth" has "stuff" for the purposes of this thread, then I have nothing futher to add.
You still haven't explained why wealth is finite. What's the measurable end to it?
Speaking of immoral. My answer is that I have no right to the wealth ac ulated by another just as much as another has no right to my wealth. Everything good and decent comes from this simple fact.
Essentially yes. Not by any specific decision, but by the results of countless decisions.
Profit for a company is allocated among the labor and among the shareholders by an individual decision in that company.
Macroeconomics is, roughly, the sum of microeconomic decisions like that.
How exactly would you define wealth?
Thankfully, our society is more populated and more complicated than a two-person world. I'm not trying to be glib - I just think that, overall, the opportunities present in the system eventually even out.
Absolutely agree. I think that, in toto, there are plenty of opportunities to get more stuff than everyone else - and that's what makes the system "work."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Corporations benefit from the ac ulated labor of their employees.
If the decision making power of how to divide that benefit rests in a small group of people, who collectively take most of that benefit, is this a conflict of interest?
What does a quote from an obscure Frenchman have to do with anything?
That's a very simplistic world-view. They also benefit from the risks taken by their executives and officers, by the capital contributed by its investors, from the poor decisions of their compe ors, etc... etc...
There's no conflict of interest because the employees are not en led to the full benefits accrued by the corporation.
I wouldn't call Karl Marx obscure or French.
Problem and solution, fumbling ardently for each other in the back seat, with predictably messy results. Such is life. Such are 49 out of 50 posts in this sports subforum so sadly lacking in technical rigor.
Why do you love it so, Doctor?
The distinction between my definition and the one it seems everyone is using is subtle, but not insignificant.
Common definition used in this thread: Wealth = How much [stuff] you have.
My definition: Wealth = How much [stuff] you have relative to everyone else.
The sum of all wealth always equals 100%, where the defining line between who is wealthy and who is not is who has a Disproportionality Index* greater than 1 (those greater are wealthy, those less than are not).
We, as a population of human beings, can all have more stuff - but the person who has the least amount of stuff is still "poor".
*an original Scott concept that I use for a lot of different applications, find my economics blog if you want to learn more, but basically is the % of [whatever it is we are trying to measure] divided by the % of the population the people who [whatever we are trying measure] have that thing. For example, in a 5 person economy, if one person holds 80% of the assets, they have a Disproportionality Index of 4 (80%/20%).
Masochism, I presume.
No
The people have those jobs because the organization is successful, and the organization is successful because of the guidance and innovation of those people.
You are typing on a computer that more than likely operates on either microsoft or apple software. Gates and Jobs are bazillionaires. They are bazillionaires because people like you choose to give them money for the products they created. They got their wealth from mutually beneficial business transactions and not by "stealing" your wealth.
"but the person who has the least amount of stuff is still "poor"."
VRWC, Heritage Foundation branch, says Americans aren't poor if they have a TV, phone, electricity, car, food.
Your definition is stupid. If everyone had a net worth of $1M, your "everyone" would be poor.
Interesting concept. I think you could make a similar argument about power (cannot be created/destroyed; is always differential) but not quantify it to the extent you have.
That being said, it seems like two conclusions can be drawn from your theory: either a) some external power (i.e. the government) should (re)organize people's stuff to deal with the simple fact that some people will have more stuff than others or b) we're content with a system where there are winners and losers (those with more stuff and those with less stuff) because the losers have the ability to become winners and the winners could always lose their stuff.
If you agree with this characterization, where do you fall?
Is it your opinion that the current concentration of wealth in the US is too-narrow and therefor harmful to our society?
It is specifically how the benefits of economic growth are distributed that, to a very large measure, define HOW MUCH economic growth there is.
Trust me, I DO NOT hire 4 new salesmen last week, plus a couple of secretaries to roll out a new product I'VE developed if I don't get to reap great, if not the preponderance of, the reward for that.
I agree with this.
Every sector on the chart has INCREASED in their monetary well-being since 1979. EVERY ONE. Seems like we're doing a pretty good job (other than that whole bringing the entire world's economy to a standstill -thing; but most of us came to common ground on that - and those that caused it - being bad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
