- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,071
- Reaction score
- 163
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
It certainly isn't ALL luck, but in completely denying the existence of luck, you are falling straight into the Fundamental Attribution Error.Maybe it simply boils down to luck? That can't be right.
Liberal: Your problem is that you don't understand the crucial importance of redistribution of wealth.
...
If you truly want the poor to have better options in life...then you have to think things through. Better options depend on people doing better things with society's limited resources. Consumers determine who exactly are the people who are doing better things with society's limited resources. The people they give their positive feedback (money) to are the people with the most insight/foresight. Therefore, we all will greatly benefit by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.
... Establishing diminishing returns on their accumulation will not thwart their impetus, but it will prevent their accumulation from causing the economy to sputter and stall out ...
Society's resources are not that limited. We have more than enough flour and capacity to have more flour to have room for a successful baker and a less successful baker to have flour. The success or failure of a bakery isn't about their product in a vacuum unless their product is really horrible. All of these threads seem to have a communist planned state undertone to them.
When large Corporations enter a particular market, they encourage and welcome excessive gov't regulation because it will force the small entrepreneur out of that business. Just like the local bread maker/baker must compete against a Corporation that wants shelves for cookies, cupcakes, bread, potato chips, crackers and demands whole areas of a store and forces out the small baker. Goes on every day. The game is gamed by Corporate Politics and Corporatism. The baker is just one small example. Check any entreprenueral endeavor in marketing.
After accumulating a certain level of wealth accumulating more is just keeping score. The accumulator is doing it more because of his competitive instinct that to serve the needs of the community. Taking some of his wealth won't diminish his efforts because it's just part of the game.
It certainly diminishes the efforts of those given "help" in the form of income redistribution. If you require $X, in order to live comfortably, does it then really matter what portion of $X is earned by your own efforts verses simply handed to you because you are deemed to "need" or "deserve" it?
I was speaking of wealth rather than income.
The effect I mentioned occurs at much higher levels than those achieved by welfare recipients.
Are you implying that wealth may be obtained other than through income?
It certainly diminishes the efforts of those given "help" in the form of income redistribution. If you require $X, in order to live comfortably, does it then really matter what portion of $X is earned by your own efforts verses simply handed to you because you are deemed to "need" or "deserve" it?
It certainly isn't ALL luck, but in completely denying the existence of luck, you are falling straight into the Fundamental Attribution Error.
Humans are not perfect and theoretical models based on that assumption are flawed. Nobody is omniscient about market conditions and many agents intentionally muddle and obfuscate knowledge to maximize their own gains. Also, expecting everyone (or even a strong minority of people) to expend every last cognitive resource maximizing their economic output is unrealistic.
Designing an economic system around those that live to work runs roughshod over those that only work to live. The former should certainly be remunerated for their dedication, but they are driven more by their need to be productive than the possibility of endless accumulation. Establishing diminishing returns on their accumulation will not thwart their impetus, but it will prevent their accumulation from causing the economy to sputter and stall out.
I definitely agree that the latter should be discouraged from burdening society with their lack of productivity. But my view is that wealth pooling at the top and stagnating the velocity of money is a much larger problem than the freeloaders.
(I have AdBlock filtering out all Youtube videos, so sorry for not even mentioning its content)
I wasn't implying anything. I was stating what I thought was clarifying fact.
However, wealth can be inherited.
I saw a program on TV last night which ties into this thread. In Who Do You Think You Are?, Trisha Yearwood, the singer, traced her family back to 18th century England. Her 5 times great grandfather, Samuel Winslett, was condemned to death by hanging for stealing some deer from a rich landholder. He was given a reprieve and sent to Georgia as an indentured criminal in 1766. For some reason, in 1770, he was granted 100 acres of land by George III. That land was a redistribution of wealth from native Americans to Winslett. Presumably, the family retained the wealth in some form and each member inherited some of it.
Don't you think, as a matter of justice, redistributing it back to native Americans would be fair?
I wasn't implying anything. I was stating what I thought was clarifying fact.
However, wealth can be inherited.
I saw a program on TV last night which ties into this thread. In Who Do You Think You Are?, Trisha Yearwood, the singer, traced her family back to 18th century England. Her 5 times great grandfather, Samuel Winslett, was condemned to death by hanging for stealing some deer from a rich landholder. He was given a reprieve and sent to Georgia as an indentured criminal in 1766. For some reason, in 1770, he was granted 100 acres of land by George III. That land was a redistribution of wealth from native Americans to Winslett. Presumably, the family retained the wealth in some form and each member inherited some of it.
Don't you think, as a matter of justice, redistributing it back to native Americans would be fair?
Humans are not perfect and theoretical models based on that assumption are flawed. Nobody is omniscient about market conditions and many agents intentionally muddle and obfuscate knowledge to maximize their own gains.
Establishing diminishing returns on their accumulation will not thwart their impetus, but it will prevent their accumulation from causing the economy to sputter and stall out.
Taxes upon transfer, besides the mischief of pressing upon capital, are a clog to the circulation of property. But, has the public any interest in its free circulation? So long as the object is in existence, is it not as well placed in one hand as in another? Certainly not. The public has a perpetual interest in the utmost possible freedom of its circulation; because by that means it is most likely to get into the hands of those, that can make the most of it. Why does one man sell his land? But because he thinks he can lay out the value to more advantage in some channel of productive industry. And why does another buy it? But because he wishes to invest a capital, that is lying idle, or less productively vested; or because he thinks it capable of improvement. The transfer tends to augment the national income, because it tends to augment the income of the two contracting parties. If they be deterred by the expenses of the transfer, those expenses will have prevented this probable increase of the national income. - J.B. Say, A Treatise on Political Economy
(I have AdBlock filtering out all Youtube videos, so sorry for not even mentioning its content)
Do you think redistribution of wealth is a big problem?
Would you tolerate any redistribution or are you opposed to all redistribution in any form?
How does having the resources in the best hands cause the economy to sputter and stall out?
Xero: [usual argument]
Liberal: Your problem is that you don't understand the crucial importance of redistribution of wealth.
Xero: Is every bakery going to be a success? Obviously not...right? If that were the case then poverty would be eliminated because everybody who lacked money would be guaranteed money simply by starting a bakery. No need for redistribution.
So what factors determine whether a bakery will be successful or not? Maybe it simply boils down to luck? That can't be right. The fact of the matter is that it's a given that some bakers are going to make less mistakes than other bakers. As a result, some bakeries are going to be more successful than others.
It boils down to insight and foresight. A successful baker sees more accurately than an unsuccessful baker. And it's up to consumers to determine which baker sees more accurately.
You want to redistribute wealth from a wealthy baker to a poor baker? You want to give more influence to people who see less accurately? You want to take flour from a successful baker and give it to an unsuccessful baker?
Your intentions are good, but unfortunately, because you're failing to think things through you're simply increasing the severity of the problem you're trying to solve.
If you truly want the poor to have better options in life...then you have to think things through. Better options depend on people doing better things with society's limited resources. Consumers determine who exactly are the people who are doing better things with society's limited resources. The people they give their positive feedback (money) to are the people with the most insight/foresight. Therefore, we all will greatly benefit by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.
First of all, "best hands" is a false premise.
Secondly, monopolies are the classic example of how too many resources in one hand works for the advantage of the owner to the detriment of society.
Third, the economy gets throttled and sputters out when too much money is in too few hands. For example, take one billionaire versus ten thousand people with $100,000. One billionaire is only going to consume so many cars, houses, clothes and other goods. Ten thousand people are going to consume thousands of times more goods. With just one billionaire, pidling demand will drive out of business people that make houses, cars and clothes. With 10,000 people making $100,000, there's going to be huge demand and those businesses will thrive.
I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? - Michael Moore
This has nothing to do with supply and demand or consumer choice. It's not even about socialism vs. capitalism.
Our country's stagnation/decline has everything to do with your failure to understand that prosperity has everything to do with how well our society's limited resources are being used.
This statement is so vague that it's practically meaningless.
Every economic problem in history has to do with a failure to understand flaws in resource allocation. We learn from the flaw and then implement a fix.
Unfortunately, this time around the fixes are obvious but are not being implemented due to nepotism, cronyism, and corruption.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?