Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

I've seen this tired old horse trotted out so many times it's pathetic. It's time to finally put it out of my misery.

A) The pie is getting bigger. It does not matter if 3% of the people own 90% of the wealth (numbers from another thread which I will not bother to investigate or dispute, since it is irrelevent regardless of what the numbers actually are), if the standard of living of the individuals continues to go up, which it does in a capitalist society. It doesn't matter if the "Gini" coefficient, a measure of "wealth concentration" continues to go up, because the standard of living of all individuals in society continues to go up. Anyone who doesn't believe this is invited to compare the standard of living of a modern janitor in the United States to kings and queens of prior centuries. The standard of living of the janitor is higher in practically every respect, with the exception of the ability to command servants.

B) Wealth turns over. As pvn has pointed out before, empirical studies have shown that 90% of affluent families lose their fortunes within 3 generations. Under capitalism, fortunes can only be build by continually innovating and pleasing large numbers of customers. Once that process stops, say when dilletant children take over the family business, poor decisions accumulate and that capital stock is lost, spent. It finds it's way into the hands of other capitalists better able to provide consumers what they want.

C) Concentrated wealth is good for consumers. Henry Ford started out with a capital investment of $25,000. By 1947 he was worth $1 billion. The reason he was worth $1 billion is because he provided consumers with what they wanted, a high quality inexpensive automobile. Better yet, he could provide high quality inexpensive automobiles because of the high productivity of his plants, which was only possible because of, you guessed it, a large capital accumulation; i.e. the factories and machineries whose value represented most of his $1 billion of "wealth". I.e. the vast majority of the "wealth" that all those evil capitalists have is the capital stock that they put to work for YOU. I don't have to own Ford to benefit from all of that capital. I don't even have to be a stockholder. All I have to do is buy a car, at far higher quality than I could build myself, and at far lower cost, and I gain the MASSIVE benefit of all that accumulated capital and productivity. I don't have to own Exxon's oil derricks, refineries, pipelines and trucks to gain the benefit of all that accumulated capital. All I need do is buy the gallon of gas at far lower cost and higher quality than I could ever hope to provide myself.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

Great post Boro...just wanted to add something for everyone to think about.

I often hear about the gap between rich and poor getting bigger.....What is better?

Choice 1) Rich people all have ten million more than they had last year...poor people all have 10000 more than they had last year. Net result rich to poor gap grows by almost ten million.

Choice 2) All rich people have 10 million less than last year...all poor people have 1 dollar more...net result rich to poor gap is smaller.

Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...or do you just want to stick it to the rich so they are a little bit closer to the hardships of being poor.? Be honest with yourselves.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe). That the gap becomes smaller to the richest is not an important goal, it is about securing an adequate living standard for everybody. You cannot do that in any way which will not hurt the rich either through direct taxation of them or through any other interference into business life that will affect them negatively. For me the x% has y% is more a way to show that there are funds available for distribution.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

You're making the mistake of treating wealth as if it were an objective, rather than a relative measure.

It really doesn't matter whether the kings and queens were poorer than the janitor in terms of colot TVs and Ipods; because the kings and queens were not acquainted with the janitor. Their point of reference was to the people over whom they ruled.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if a janitor is richer than the monarchs. He's not comparing himself to the kings and queens. He's point of reference is to the people whose toilets he cleans. If he's poorer then them (which is what it means to clean their toilets), then he's poor. Regardless of the queens and kings.

To put it differently, the rich need the poor; without the poor, they cannot exist. The poor, on the other hand, having nothing to lose but their chains.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

People who are worried about the increasing wealth disparities are worried, that the trend will accelerate to the point that a small percentage of country will own close to 100% of the wealth, and at that point they will be in position of power over everyone else and can dispense with the niceties of representative democracy or respublic whenever they choose.
People who do not have the wealth will be unable to stop this. Since most people are not in the top one percent, it is very easy to scare them with this scenario. The trend of rich getting richer is a real trend, and it really appears to be accelerating. What do you think will stop this trend, so that it does not continue to the absurd conclusion of one small group owning all the wealth?

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe). That the gap becomes smaller to the richest is not an important goal, it is about securing an adequate living standard for everybody. You cannot do that in any way which will not hurt the rich either through direct taxation of them or through any other interference into business life that will affect them negatively. For me the x% has y% is more a way to show that there are funds available for distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
To put it differently, the rich need the poor; without the poor, they cannot exist. The poor, on the other hand, need the rich

[/ QUOTE ]
fyp

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

The ""x% of people have y% of the wealth" stat isn't irrelevant, it is just incomplete. Certainly it is useful in describing different societies with similar levels of total wealth.

Given the diminishing marginal utility of wealth, it would be generally preferable from a utilitarian perspective to spread wealth around as much as possible, if that spreading doesn't decrease the total amount of wealth created.

You say:

"It does not matter if 3% of the people own 90% of the wealth, if the standard of living of the individuals continues to go up."

...Except it does matter if the standard of living would have gone up even more had wealth been less concentrated.

The fact that American capitalism has made things slightly better for the poor doesn't mean another system could not have made even greater improvements. In fact, if one accepts that people's labor/leisure curves are backward bending at certain points, a higher level of taxation could create incentive to produce more wealth.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

Despite your conclusion that there is something 'great' or 'morally right' about capitalism, it is in the end, just another economic theory. One that is working, to be sure, but still it has its flaws and will eventually be replaced by some other product of human reasoning and imagination. That you write off the symptom's of your systems failure you dismissively merely reawakens the viewer to your huge bias towards this system.

C) Are you so sure? Giving people what they want is not neccessarily "good for them". If my friend wants to commit suicide, should I give him a gun? Or if my friend addicted to heroin wants to shoot up, should I go out and buy him a needle? Happiness is not obtained by material things (nor, it is important to note it is not taken away by them) but there are things that can take away happiness. Starvation, for example, or a life dulled and removed from inspiration. Death. What is good for someone as a customer or consumer may not be good for a nation, or a person.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe). That the gap becomes smaller to the richest is not an important goal, it is about securing an adequate living standard for everybody. You cannot do that in any way which will not hurt the rich either through direct taxation of them or through any other interference into business life that will affect them negatively. For me the x% has y% is more a way to show that there are funds available for distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]. I am not an extremist aka. communists or such, but I don't believe you have a 100% right to keep what you earn/have. I understand that taxing too hard is both hurting the economy and also crossing a moral line. But I believe that the boy next door is more entitled to your money for food and schoolbooks if he/his parents can't afford than you are too them for your own consumption. If you don't agree to that I am willing to use force to make it happen anyway.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe). That the gap becomes smaller to the richest is not an important goal, it is about securing an adequate living standard for everybody. You cannot do that in any way which will not hurt the rich either through direct taxation of them or through any other interference into business life that will affect them negatively. For me the x% has y% is more a way to show that there are funds available for distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you can do it without direct taxation and without interferring in business.

FUNDS DO NOT NEED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED. Funds and wealth are created. (can you not understand that the wealth of today is more than in 1700 AD?) Where did that money come from? Did someone have that wealth stashed away for noone to see? NO IT WAS CREATED!!!! Bill gates did not get rich by taking money from rich people...he provided a product and people bought it. If you do not want him to get richer...dont buy his products.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

The thing is, the real problem I have with taxes isn't that they're helping the person down the street... it's that they're not helping the person down the street. How are my taxes giving that kid food and school books? They're going to pay some beauocrat to sit in an office to create studies on the ways they waste our money.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're making the mistake of treating wealth as if it were an objective, rather than a relative measure.

It really doesn't matter whether the kings and queens were poorer than the janitor in terms of colot TVs and Ipods; because the kings and queens were not acquainted with the janitor. Their point of reference was to the people over whom they ruled.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if a janitor is richer than the monarchs. He's not comparing himself to the kings and queens. He's point of reference is to the people whose toilets he cleans. If he's poorer then them (which is what it means to clean their toilets), then he's poor. Regardless of the queens and kings.

To put it differently, the rich need the poor; without the poor, they cannot exist. The poor, on the other hand, having nothing to lose but their chains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for neatly illustrating that your entire worldview and personal philosophy is based on envy. I couldn't have illustrated it better myself.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
FUNDS DO NOT NEED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where we disagree, funds do not need to be redistributed for the poorest 5% to increase their living standard, however they have to be redistributed in order to get that living standard to the point where I find it acceptable. The poor in 100 years time will be richer than the poor today almost regardless of how we run society, I don't disagree with that.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FUNDS DO NOT NEED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where we disagree, funds do not need to be redistributed for the poorest 5% to increase their living standard, however they have to be redistributed in order to get that living standard to the point where I find it acceptable. The poor in 100 years time will be richer than the poor today almost regardless of how we run society, I don't disagree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow again. Sorry not to add much, just want to emphasize the parts that just shock the hell out of me. Then again, you are from a Socialist country, so if you hear those things constantly, its hard to think otherwise.

Nothing personal, I'm sure you believe them, but it scares the hell out of me.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, the real problem I have with taxes isn't that they're helping the person down the street... it's that they're not helping the person down the street. How are my taxes giving that kid food and school books? They're going to pay some beauocrat to sit in an office to create studies on the ways they waste our money.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of money goes to waste in the redistribution process, I don't disagree with that, its a price I am willing to pay. But all the waste is also a reason to be selective wrt to what the government is supposed to provide, it has to be something important to justify the waste, if it is something unimportant also the poor are better off with the money working in the private sector instead.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]

To put it differently, the rich need the poor; without the poor, they cannot exist. The poor, on the other hand, having nothing to lose but their chains (and homes and cars and color TV's) .

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, the real problem I have with taxes isn't that they're helping the person down the street... it's that they're not helping the person down the street. How are my taxes giving that kid food and school books? They're going to pay some beauocrat to sit in an office to create studies on the ways they waste our money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an answer to all this. Let my mom create the federal budget. She could cut about 90% of the budget in a week. America will know what the "needs" of the country are... as when I grew up, mom always met my needs...but not always met my '"wants" ....thats what we need to get back to.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow again. Sorry not to add much, just want to emphasize the parts that just shock the hell out of me. Then again, you are from a Socialist country, so if you hear those things constantly, its hard to think otherwise.

Nothing personal, I'm sure you believe them, but it scares the hell out of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have lived also in a non-sosialistic country, so it is not like it is my only reference point. We also have non-socialist media and political parties, so it is not like we are indoctrinated. It is a matter of values, there is a conflict between the rights you feel entitled to as an individual and the rights I feel that the individual next to you is entitled to.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe). That the gap becomes smaller to the richest is not an important goal, it is about securing an adequate living standard for everybody. You cannot do that in any way which will not hurt the rich either through direct taxation of them or through any other interference into business life that will affect them negatively. For me the x% has y% is more a way to show that there are funds available for distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]. I am not an extremist aka. communists or such, but I don't believe you have a 100% right to keep what you earn/have. I understand that taxing too hard is both hurting the economy and also crossing a moral line. But I believe that the boy next door is more entitled to your money for food and schoolbooks if he/his parents can't afford than you are too them for your own consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is that, if accepted, everyone is then "entitled" to everything. All property claims become subjective verbal claims about who can put what to "the best" use. It's a recipe for never ending conflict. It destroys the very purpose of property, which is to reduce and resolve conflicts over scarce resources, not foment them.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't agree to that I am willing to use force to make it happen anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point.

PS. Why isn't the boy next door entitled to *your* money, and why don't you just hand it over instead of using force to take someone else's? My opinion is that the "compassion" that underlies this flavor of socialism is a hollow, empty compassion. The socialist doesn't actually care enough about the poor and the downtrodden to get off his duff or reach into his own pocket; he would rather stay on his duff and have a man with a gun reach into someone else's.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant. *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by [censored]

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]

PS. Why isn't the boy next door entitled to *your* money, and why don't you just hand it over instead of using force to take someone else's? My opinion is that the "compassion" that underlies this flavor of socialism is a hollow, empty compassion. The socialist doesn't actually care enough about the poor and the downtrodden to get off his duff or reach into his own pocket; he would rather stay on his duff and have a man with a gun reach into someone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is a prejudice towards socialists, you find a lot of socialists that are involved in charity etc.. The same prejudice you also often find towards rich people. I think most people have compassion and want good for people around, regardless of their political belief. If enough charity was in place to achieve the goals, I wouldn't ask you for a single dollar of tax, but unfortunately it isn't.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe).

[/ QUOTE ]

And those socialist economies in Europe are doing so well....inflation.... zero to very little economic growth....sign me up!

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is that, if accepted, everyone is then "entitled" to everything. All property claims become subjective verbal claims about who can put what to "the best" use. It's a recipe for never ending conflict. It destroys the very purpose of property, which is to reduce and resolve conflicts over scarce resources, not foment them.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are in this situation already, there isn't any universal worldwide principles in place, there is a lot of conflicting principles and conflicting laws. I could claim that your point of view is a source of conflict as well as you can claim that mine is, I am not going to change my point of view to avoid conflict.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think will stop this trend, so that it does not continue to the absurd conclusion of one small group owning all the wealth?

[/ QUOTE ]

When 1% owns 99% of all the stuff, the other 99% will rise up and take it - by force, if necessary.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the diminishing marginal utility of wealth, it would be generally preferable from a utilitarian perspective to spread wealth around as much as possible, if that spreading doesn't decrease the total amount of wealth created.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a utilitarian perspective, transfers are preferable even if they result in a net reduction of total wealth.

For example, if your annual income is ten million, ten thousand more or less is insignificant. It makes - literally - no difference. If you're making $10,000 a year, on the other hand, that amount of money is significant.

Even if transferring 10k from the owner to the worker somehow cost money - some of the money disappeared - the net result would be better than if you hadn't transferred the money at all.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under capitalism, fortunes can only be build by continually innovating and pleasing large numbers of customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then this "capitalism" is of marginal relevance. (I suppose the large number of beneficiaries of the violent 19th century European empires were pretty pleased with themselves, though they weren't the "customers" really.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Societies are not capitalist exactly to the extent that states interfere in their markets. So complaining about 19th state aggression in a thread about the free market is of "marginal relevance."

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe).

[/ QUOTE ]

And those socialist economies in Europe are doing so well....inflation.... zero to very little economic growth....sign me up!

[/ QUOTE ]

Jees, there are successful socialist economies too. However the GDP all other equal will be lower in a socialist economy, I don't question that.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]


When 1% owns 99% of all the stuff, the other 99% will rise up and take it - by force, if necessary.


[/ QUOTE ]
If 1% owns 99% of the stuff, it should be pretty easy to buy enough guns to shoot anyone who even tries. In fact, that's pretty much a guarantee.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

check this out (click on income trends):

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/p...ends-2005.html

take note of the level of inequality and the concentration of wealth over time relative to the success of a given time period.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is that, if accepted, everyone is then "entitled" to everything. All property claims become subjective verbal claims about who can put what to "the best" use. It's a recipe for never ending conflict. It destroys the very purpose of property, which is to reduce and resolve conflicts over scarce resources, not foment them.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are in this situation already, there isn't any universal worldwide principles in place, there is a lot of conflicting principles and conflicting laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And I make the normative claim that conflict is bad and the objective claim that conflicts are costlier than the absence of conflicts, and that ceteris paribus a society based around an objective property system that minimizes and resolves conflicts will be wealthier than a society based around neverending conflicting subjective property claims that foment conflicts, as well as the a priori deduction that capitalist societies based on the division of labor and voluntary transactions produce the maximum benefit for the most people. Since I care more about the many than the few, this is the system I will advocate.

[ QUOTE ]
I could claim that your point of view is a source of conflict as well as you can claim that mine is,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not going to change my point of view to avoid conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always admire an honest statist; someone who proudly proclaims that he isn't going to change his mind and is willing to use force to make you comply.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Societies are not capitalist exactly to the extent of states interfere in their markets. So complaining about 19th state aggression in a thread about the free market is of "marginal relevance."

[/ QUOTE ]

With one thing I agree with you AC'ists, there hasn't been much free capitalism in modern history, even today the US is far from free capitalism.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Yes you can do it without direct taxation and without interferring in business.

FUNDS DO NOT NEED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED. Funds and wealth are created. (can you not understand that the wealth of today is more than in 1700 AD?)

[/ QUOTE ]

We're better off today mainly because of the introduction of better government. There are other reasons, of course.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did that money come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

It came from the blood, sweat, and toil of millions of workers, often working for a fraction of the real worth of their labor, in order to enrich the bank accounts of the already rich - so that they can, in turn, become even richer.

[ QUOTE ]
Did someone have that wealth stashed away for noone to see? NO IT WAS CREATED!!!! Bill gates did not get rich by taking money from rich people...he provided a product and people bought it. If you do not want him to get richer...dont buy his products.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gates is rich because he was able to introduce his product at a time and in a way that provided him with a near-monopoly on operating system software.

If he had not done it, somebody else would have.

And it's possible - even likely - that we'd all be better off today, if we were using some other software than Windows.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under capitalism, fortunes can only be build by continually innovating and pleasing large numbers of customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then this "capitalism" is of marginal relevance. (I suppose the large number of beneficiaries of the violent 19th century European empires were pretty pleased with themselves, though they weren't the "customers" really.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Societies are not capitalist exactly to the extent of states interfere in their markets. So complaining about 19th state aggression in a thread about the free market is of "marginal relevance."

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's complaining? I'm simply pointing out that your capitalist model is not a sufficient basis for extrapolating the virtuousness of all fortunes. Your OP did not make it clear that its conclusions are applicable only to a specific ideal society.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

But you aren't going to manage to convince everybody to think like you, so the conflict isn't going away. So even though you may be right, you are still a contributor to keeping the conflict alive (as am I).

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I always admire an honest statist; someone who proudly proclaims that he isn't going to change his mind and is willing to use force to make you comply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I will keep that in mind when I decide where to aim when I fire the gun [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]


We're better off today mainly because of the introduction of better government. There are other reasons, of course.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the less, the better.


[ QUOTE ]

It came from the blood, sweat, and toil of millions of workers, often working for a fraction of the real worth of their labor, in order to enrich the bank accounts of the already rich - so that they can, in turn, become even richer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Karl Marx, you have an apprentice. That and the fact that people had ideas to hire them and use them in productive ways.




[ QUOTE ]

Gates is rich because he was able to introduce his product at a time and in a way that provided him with a near-monopoly on operating system software.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a smart guy to me

[ QUOTE ]

If he had not done it, somebody else would have.

And it's possible - even likely - that we'd all be better off today, if we were using some other software than Windows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doh. Thought we had something that made sense. Someone else maybe would have, perhaps 30 years later. Who knows.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

PS. Why isn't the boy next door entitled to *your* money, and why don't you just hand it over instead of using force to take someone else's? My opinion is that the "compassion" that underlies this flavor of socialism is a hollow, empty compassion. The socialist doesn't actually care enough about the poor and the downtrodden to get off his duff or reach into his own pocket; he would rather stay on his duff and have a man with a gun reach into someone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is a prejudice towards socialists, you find a lot of socialists that are involved in charity etc.. The same prejudice you also often find towards rich people. I think most people have compassion and want good for people around, regardless of their political belief. If enough charity was in place to achieve the goals, I wouldn't ask you for a single dollar of tax, but unfortunately it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because much of it is outlawed. It's a great trick. Make it illegal to provide charity, and then claim there is a market failure in charitable giving. For example, the state makes one jump through an incredible amount of extremely costly hoops to set up any charity of significant scale. Why? Because those in government don't want the competition. For example, where I come from, it is a crime to cook food for the homeless.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But you aren't going to manage to convince everybody to think like you, so the conflict isn't going away. So even though you may be right, you are still a contributor to keeping the conflict alive (as am I).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are conflating intellectual disagreement with property disputes.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's because much of it is outlawed. It's a great trick. Make it illegal to provide charity, and then claim there is a market failure in charitable giving. For example, the state makes one jump through an incredible amount of extremely costly hoops to set up any charity of significant scale. Why? Because those in government don't want the competition. For example, where I come from, it is a crime to cook food for the homeless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, this sounds like a local phenomena. I think most charity is legal in Europe.

Re: Why \"x% of people have y% of the wealth\" is irrelevant.
 

Borodog,


pretty much agree with your post but I do think it matters greatly that the poor and middle class have the perception that the system is fair to them and that they have the possibility through hard work, good living and intelligence to accumulate more wealth and a better life. I think if it gets to the point where too large of a percentage lose that belief and stop "buying into" the system problems start to arise like the desire for socialism, or other unrest.

so in summary I think its some times necessary to take minor steps to slow the perception of uneven income distribution in order to insure the system as a whole.