These people are our future

[WillburForce]

I'm sure you would like to see John Travolta and Tom Cruise be less rich.

Nothing wrong with them being rich - but tax them a fair amount. And by that I don't mean what they'd consider fair. I'd start at around 65% and poss more.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I don't think this is fair or true - some people can't afford to make a choice.

I can - I buy from local butchers, local greengrocers etc, only free range or organic meat, try and stick to veg grown in Enlgand and in season etc. But I have a disposable income. I choose not to shop at Asda/Walmart because I can afford not to. The poor don't really have a chioce but to buy the cheapest.

As for should the guy who found a cure for cancer be taxed? Of course, if he turns it into a business or whatever. But then I'd hope that whoever did would make it free and available to everyone.

If everyone is taxed on income so should the guy who found the cure for cancer. I don't think anyone should be taxed on income. It makes no difference to me what he wants to charge for it either. Whatever he wants to charge is fine with me.

Everyone can afford to make a choice. No one is free from the responsibility of a decision. There are people who live in trees and do not consume anything and live off little money, if any at all. When you value something in the world you must use your time, energy, money, etc. to create it. When you say hate rich monsanto investors but buy monsanto broccoli for $2.60 because you have no money to buy the higher quality $5.20 broccoli, you clearly don't hate monsanto that much.

Businesses are simply reflections of the values, needs, and wants of the people. If this isn't the case for some business please let me know.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

BBC News - Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study

Not making a point, merely illuminating my basis for understanding. The people who do shit work for shittier pay lift the whole world upon their shoulders.

edit I guess I am making a point but would enjoy being shown wrong.

As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.

This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."

[IowaSkinsFan]

Nothing wrong with them being rich - but tax them a fair amount. And by that I don't mean what they'd consider fair. I'd start at around 65% and poss more.

Explain why they, or anyone, should be taxed on income at all?

[Duffryn]

When you voluntarily exchange your money for a good or service, you are sanctioning that the person you exchanged that money with has the right to do whatever the hell he wants with it. If you exchange money for a good or service with people who do not donate to charity or do not act in good will than you have helped create that, is despicable to strong of a word, state of the world.

No, I am buying goods or services that I need. I don't have the time or the information to know where that money is going or how charitable the recipients are.

I think the trouble I have with your argument so far is that you are assuming that the rich have gained money through illegitimate means.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

[Renton]

Can you explain this further? Why does building a fortune require the alleviation of financial burden from the poor?

Because if the poor had to pay substantially higher taxes than they do (read: ANY taxes) then they might be in such abject poverty that it would be impossible to aspire to anything.

I, for example, having grown up in a poor family, may not have been able to go to college because I'd have to have dropped out of high school to get a job and help keep the lights on.

[WillburForce]

Explain why they, or anyone, should be taxed on income at all?

well I guess you could tax other ways maybe - income tax is probably the fairest and easiest way to asses peoples cicumstances.

Do you think everyone should pay the same tax? Or no tax at all?

I think also with regards everyone having a choice....this isn't really true.
The poorest people don't choose to live that way. It's a cycle of poverty, tied into education, upbringing etc etc, which is extremely difficult to stop.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Because if the poor had to pay substantially higher taxes than they do (read: ANY taxes) then they might be in such abject poverty that it would be impossible to aspire to anything.

I, for example, having grown up in a poor family, may not have been able to go to college because I'd have to have dropped out of high school to get a job and help keep the lights on.

Fair enough, I don't disagree with anything you said. No one should have to pay any income taxes. Any funding needed to give people enough opportunity can come from other tax sources.

[IowaSkinsFan]

well I guess you could tax other ways maybe - income tax is probably the fairest and easiest way to asses peoples cicumstances.

Do you think everyone should pay the same tax? Or no tax at all?

I think also with regards everyone having a choice....this isn't really true.
The poorest people don't choose to live that way. It's a cycle of poverty, tied into education, upbringing etc etc, which is extremely difficult to stop.

No one should pay income tax. Some other taxes are acceptable.
I'll respond to the last part soon im playing poker.

[a500lbgorilla]

As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.

This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."

I know this is douchey replying every time with a link but

YouTube - RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

But a reward system based on you do this and you get $$$ seems applicable only to these jobs that mean more back-breaking yield more money, not the you innovate and we reward you with billions framework.

Some points I want to make but don't have time to put pretty words to:

"Anyone can do it" does not negate the fact that those who do it lift up the rest of us.

Their value is pretty cemented because they represent the bedrock of society. And is variable only based on what you build upon that bedrock.

"If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one."

UFW: The Official Web Page of the United Farm Workers of America - Titled "Take Our Jobs, Please"

So that's not true, unless you restricted their numbers and paid them to a level representing the nebulous "American Dream." But wherever there are people, there will be demand for these crap jobs which hoist up societies.

[Duffryn]

So the whole populace should have a say on how I spend my money in your theory correct? So basically, I should cede control of my own decisions on how to spend my money to the governments approximation of what is right and good? The problem I have with this is that the government fails to spend money in this fashion, at least in terms of my values. This approximation need not take place anyways.

I'm sure you would like to see John Travolta and Tom Cruise be less rich. Unfortunately for you, you represent the tiniest percent of the human race. On the other hand, anyone who sees a John Travolta or Tom Cruise movie, whether they actually want them to be rich or not, are sanctioning TC and JT to be rich. They are buying that $9 movie ticket in exchange for their entertainment and consequently in exchange for JT and TC's decision on how to use that money. Now if you then tax JT and TC a shitload, you are taking away the responsibility of the people for their own actions. And when people are not responsible for their own actions, there is no incentive to evolve.

No, the government has the right to take a proportion of your money and spend it. So you think that there should be no taxation and therefore no government?

No-one is ever going to say that they are happy with the way any government spends every cent. But I would rather a Government is in charge of spending money for the common good than to be reliant on a collection of wealthy individuals accountable to no-one. That's the main point about Tom Cruise and John Travolta. You want the only option for the education of your children to be in a Scientology school? Or muslim/atheist/catholic/mormon/whatever depending on the religion/non religion of your local benefactor?

Actually, I think a huge majority of the world's population would want John Travolta and Tom Cruise to be less rich. The rewards they receive are out of proportion. You really think the millions around the world living on less than $1 a day or less think its great that John Travolta has two jumbo jets parked in his back yard?

The idea that buying something is wholesale acceptance of any associated practice is bizarre. Going to see a Tom Cruise film is not endorsement of Scientology or the way he spends his money. That's like saying that voting means you agree with all that a Government does.

[a500lbgorilla]

I know this is douchey replying every time with a link but

YouTube - RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

But a reward system based on you do this and you get $$$ seems applicable only to these jobs that mean more back-breaking yield more money, not the you innovate and we reward you with billions framework.

Some points I want to make but don't have time to put pretty words to:

"Anyone can do it" does not negate the fact that those who do it lift up the rest of us.

Their value is pretty cemented because they represent the bedrock of society. And is variable only based on what you build upon that bedrock.

"If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one."

UFW: The Official Web Page of the United Farm Workers of America - Titled "Take Our Jobs, Please"

So that's not true, unless you restricted their numbers and paid them to a level representing the nebulous "American Dream." But wherever there are people, there will be demand for these crap jobs which hoist up societies.

But people should always be paid less than they generate. You can guarantee yourself a raise if you prove that you've generated X revenue for the company while holding a salary of Y (X>>Y) and it provides for societal surpluses if everyone is taking less in than they create. So obviously the shit workers shouldn't be paid awesome wages, but you can't say that the rich do everything for society when the many poor take the brunt of the workload, is my point.

Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.

[a500lbgorilla]

As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.

This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."

I hate that I keep getting pulled back to this right now, but I also think the idea is that the value created by remedial workers is obvious and straight forward and undervalued, while the value crated by bankers and the like is very difficult to parse through. So the stance that crap workers definitely create value is easy to stand by, while defending the allocators of investment capital seeking to marry ideas with resources to grow a 20% likely to succeed company is a concept beyond the grasp.

As ISF said before, it's a problem with too many variables floating around in the unknown.

[IowaSkinsFan]

No, the government has the right to take a proportion of your money and spend it. So you think that there should be no taxation and therefore no government?

No taxation of income. There should be little taxation and little government.

No-one is ever going to say that they are happy with the way any government spends every cent. But I would rather a Government is in charge of spending money for the common good than to be reliant on a collection of wealthy individuals accountable to no-one. That's the main point about Tom Cruise and John Travolta. You want the only option for the education of your children to be in a Scientology school? Or muslim/atheist/catholic/mormon/whatever depending on the religion/non religion of your local benefactor?

Rich people are accountable to everyone. Present and future cash flow is dependent on the voluntary exchange of money from people other than yourself. For example, I'm sure Mel Gibson is making much less money since everyone realize he was a wack job, same as JT and TC. Also, the hypothetical you put forth is impossible unless a majority of the nation, likely 95% if not greater, were all one specific religion. If that was the case, I would not feel entitled for them to forgo their beliefs and offer me a school of a different religion. For example, if there were 3 people in the US who believed in bananas as God, and had scripture that devoted their faith to bananas, are they entitled to be offered a banana school?

Actually, I think a huge majority of the world's population would want John Travolta and Tom Cruise to be less rich. The rewards they receive are out of proportion. You really think the millions around the world living on less than $1 a day or less think its great that John Travolta has two jumbo jets parked in his back yard?

I think they probably think its terrible. But JT and TC have not done anything more to keep those people poor than the people who bought their movie tickets instead of helping those poor people. JT and TC are simply using the money in the same "worthless" way.

The idea that buying something is wholesale acceptance of any associated practice is bizarre. Going to see a Tom Cruise film is not endorsement of Scientology or the way he spends his money. That's like saying that voting means you agree with all that a Government does.

Let me propose a basic hypothetical. Someone offers you a stereo system for $100. You know that he stole this stereo and this is why you can buy it at such a low price. You buy it. Did you not endorse stealing? If not, now lets say that nearly everyone in the world declined to buy stolen merchandise, would the amount of stealing in the world be more, less, or the same than it is now?

[boost]

Danny, I am not well versed in economics, so I am trying to stick to the sidelines here.

However there are a few points that you have kept hammering away at that stand out to me as being flat out wrong. One of them being the idea that charity can make up for the financial deficit created in the absence of income taxes. At best, as I believe Wilbur pointed out, we would have a blotchy landscape of well funded schools with special interest leanings in some regions and woefully underfunded schools in other regions. Or, there could be a central charity (government run? independent? not sure it matters) that would distribute the charitable donations more evenly. Yet I still fail to be convinced that you truly believe that these charitable donations would be enough to fund schools to today's levels (woefully underfunded) much less to the standards that they should be funded.

You keep suggesting that the window to peoples values is a view of their check book. Yet you are missing a fundamental concept in that when a person becomes rich and can afford the highest private school for his child without even blinking, he has no reason to value a public school system. So without a need, we have no value; without value, we have no charity. So essentially the schooling of the less than rich is left to the less than rich. Maybe you think this is fair, but it just divides the classes further and makes the classes more self perpetuating through the generations than they already are.

Another underlying concept that seems to support your theories is the idea that having earned an amount of money, it is yours to do with as you please. I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it again is way off base. If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor. Therefore a person needs society to be rich, and therefore is in debt to society. I understand that this is super simplified and turns economy into a zero sum game, but I think it proves my point just the same.

I think the strongest counter to your argument as a whole is that people pay taxes. If you can claim that, despite being threatened with starvation, the poorest person still has a choice between monsanto and the higher-priced/harder-to-come-by local organic and in making that choice is supporting the practices and ideals of the producer; then the flip side of the coin is that Joe Billionaire is making a choice to pay taxes, and by making that choice is supporting where those taxes go by choice. He is threatened with jail time, and they are threatened with death.

The libertarian house is built on a sandy lot.. it looks like a great place to live, but even the most superficial inspection reveals that the foundation is sinking.


side notes: I do not think either of you (max/danny) have rebutted the theory that a strong middle class is necessary for a strong economy and therefore is beneficial to the upper class. That of course goes hand in hand with the theory that a strong middle class is created by social safety nets funded by taxation. As far as I know (and like I said, I am not very well versed in economics) this is theory insomuch as the theory of evolution is theory.

Also I do not believe either of you have commented on the question about a 100% inheritance tax.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I hate that I keep getting pulled back to this right now, but I also think the idea is that the value created by remedial workers is obvious and straight forward and undervalued, while the value crated by bankers and the like is very difficult to parse through. So the stance that crap workers definitely create value is easy to stand by, while defending the allocators of investment capital seeking to marry ideas with resources to grow a 20% likely to succeed company is a concept beyond the grasp.

As ISF said before, it's a problem with too many variables floating around in the unknown.

So are you just saying many people have a hard time understanding why the cleaner gets paid less? Or are you saying you still don't believe he should be paid less?

[wufwugy]

It's going to be tough to break down the discussion I've missed so far, but I'll try

This not so hypothetical is one of the main reasons I can't support high taxes on the rich. Let's say someone creates a cure for cancer. He no doubt has spent most of his time, energy, and money researching and developing this cure. He sells it to people with cancer for a very large amount of money and becomes a billionaire. Tell me why this person does not deserve every cent of his billions of dollars.

Because of inequality. Not only is life naturally very unequal, but due to things like finiteness and feedback loops in economics, the scenario you describe furthers inequality. ISF, in all the debate we've had, you've unwittingly been arguing for special rights and totalitarianism. As soon as you replace arbitrary philosophizing with how real society and real econ works, I think you'll begin to realize this. Part of me thinks you may actually agree with special rights and totalitarianism, though. If that's the case then I'll just shut up

I'm not trying to be rude. The majority of people unwittingly support policy that promotes special rights and totalitarianism. The human brain is normally very selfish, and our thoughts reflect that. It's only when we look at the real world evidence that we can begin seeing how the real world actually works


The rest of the post is more general than pointing fingers at any individuals


RE: cure for cancer. It is incredibly rare for private industry to provide much R&D into things like this, and really about anything. Private industry cares about profit above all. R&D is incredibly unprofitable. When the cure for cancer comes, here's what's gonna happen: 1) the vast, vast majority of R&D was public funding i.e. taxes, and 2) pharmaceutical companies are going to jump in ASAP in attempt to acquire as much profit as possible, then eventually everybody will again believe that the private company was responsible for the cure in the first place

Science and technology development is almost entirely publicly funded. Private industry jumps in at the final stages when it's time to create and distribute product. In a "tax-free" utopia, you'll find that advancing technology comes to an abrupt halt. R&D is RIDICULOUSLY expensive, and the one and only way to tackle it is via public funding. Private funding does exist, but it's a small portion of total technological R&D that doesn't revolve around a specific distributable product

The only example I know of when private funding was most important in developing a cure was when the entire nation was scared to death that their kids would become deformed by polio. A rich guy paid Jonas Salk to develop a vaccine, they did, then gave it away for free. A highly rare occurrence, and Salk was already very hard on the heels of the vaccine in the first place

Big fat chance at that happening today. Pharmaceutical companies are too busy robbing old people of hundreds of millions of dollars to do something that actually helps people



RE: deservedness. This idea really needs to be abandoned. It's about as arbitrary as it gets. Let me use the exact same logic used by anybody who believes that deservedness should play a pivotal role in resource acquisition to illustrate why it's silly

What does Isaac Newton deserve? He's the father of physics after all. Without him, Bill Gates would be flipping burgers. Without Newton, there is no Wall Street, no F-22s, no oil refineries. Now, let's quantify how much money Newton (or his offspring because estate taxes are wrong ldo) "deserves" based on the exact same criteria we determine how much Buffet or Gates or the Koch brothers or anybody else "deserves"

After crunching all the unfathomable numbers, would we find that a thousand trillion $$ is way too tiny to cover all that Newton "deserves"? This ideology is arbitrary, unsustainable, irrational, and silly. After we give Newton's estate everything it "deserves" we've created a totalitarian regime.

Deservedness should play some role because it's an important factor in how humans work, but we've taken it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far, and created a society where the guy at the right place in the right time with the right parents and right upbringing is worth 53 billion



RE: income taxes. By far the most correct taxes available. Real world society cares about how things actually work, and taxes based on relative social operation capacity and burden are the most fair. Things like flat tax actually disproportionately decrease burden on the luckiest while increasing burden on the unluckiest.

I mean I just don't get this. How is it possible for people to think that somebody who lives at the low end of social structure needs to pay a huge chunk of their worth on taxes, while somebody who lives far above normal social structure shouldn't have to pay as much? People struggling for food pay substantially higher relative taxes than Warren Buffet who couldn't imagine what struggling for food is, unless it's similar to struggling to beat the other guy at the auction for that prized yacht he's gonna add to his collection

Not to mention the self-perpetuating qualities of inequality. The wealthy are supposed to pay a ton in taxes because if they don't then everybody else is born into squalor, then whoosh out the window flies any semblance of free market, equality, or anything other than totalitarianism. And this "ton" in taxes still provides for the wealthy to still live substantially above median and in mansions with hookers and blow and stuff. Also, the kind of wealthy I'm referring to is the mega wealthy. Not the people with a million or so to their name, but the people who make so much they can buy islands. Wasn't 100M the average income of Wall Street CEOs last year? I love how we pay guys to steal from us

No matter how you slice it, the people who acquire more do so with the aid of those who acquire less. No matter how you slice it, the lucky ride on the backs of the unlucky. These factors are not the only at play, but they are among the most significant. When somebody claims you should pick yourself up by you own bootstraps, maybe point out to him that he never did, so why should I



None of this is new information. It's been standard knowledge for quite some time. But just like how there's still creationists, global warming deniers, flat-earthers, alternative medicine hippies, there's still denial of the real evidence and real facts of how society works


Also, I want to add that some people are so rich that they make more by just letting their money sit in the bank than the annual incomes of everybody on this board right now. And they pay substantially lower taxes on it than some illegal immigrants who barely get by. This shit is wrong

[wufwugy]

As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.

This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."

This is not true

Not only do societies exist where the lowest skill jobs make very strong wages, but the effects throughout the society are one of equalizing and raising living standards and such of the rest of society, not everybody and their brother clamoring to get one particular 'overvalued' job. What you may think is overvaluing menial labor is actually increasing economic strength, and our history shows it's one of the only ways to do so.

"Value" is largely artificial. The middle class used to be "valued" more than it is now. Their real value hasn't gone down at all, just the ability for corporations to centralize profit payout into the executive bracket. They've done this by lying and gradually shifting the goalposts to the point that the populace believes them and believes their real value is less than it should be

[wufwugy]

Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.

Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than others

This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though

[IowaSkinsFan]

Capitalism Magazine - "Francisco's Money Speech"

[a500lbgorilla]

So are you just saying many people have a hard time understanding why the cleaner gets paid less? Or are you saying you still don't believe he should be paid less?

People don't have a hard time understanding why cleaners get paid less, they have a difficult time reconciling why industries of capital-allocation get paid so much more.

And I believe he should be paid "less" and adequately but less than the value he produces, I believe that of all jobs including my own.

I have a point I want to make, but it's lost to me right now, maybe later tonight I can summon it up.

[Duffryn]

Let me propose a basic hypothetical. Someone offers you a stereo system for $100. You know that he stole this stereo and this is why you can buy it at such a low price. You buy it. Did you not endorse stealing? If not, now lets say that nearly everyone in the world declined to buy stolen merchandise, would the amount of stealing in the world be more, less, or the same than it is now?

The world is not that simple. Suppose I need a new computer. Should I buy a micromac, whose CEO, Bill Jobs is a billionaire but never gives any money to charity? But their biggest investor just donated $1m to victims of the Haiti earthquake. But they just switched their production of computers to China and threw 20, 000 americans out of work. Ummm.... What about MacMicro? CEO Steve Gates has a charitable foundation. But they were just found guilty of discriminating against their ginger haired workers. And they employ child labourers in India. Hmmm. Do I support a greedy CEO or the exploitation of children? Most of the time you don't know the nefarious practices of the suppliers of goods and services, but if you did, you would be lucky ever to find a supplier whose values you totally agreed with. Most of the time we have the illusion of choice not a real choice.

Rich people are not accountable. They are newsworthy. If you shot 20 people tomorrow, you would find yourself "accountable". Mel Gibson may have lost some income, but that is hardly being accountable. His DVDs have not been removed from shelves and he is still living a very comfortable life with more money than 99.99% of the world's population.

A charitable society is unrealistic. Some wealthy people would give selflessly as they do now. But others would give with strings attached or just buy a third jumbo jet. Even if people cared enough to boycott the goods and services of those they disliked, the non charitable rich would employ expensive PR companies to present themselves more favourably or even buy media outlets to ensure they got a good press. Just look at how the world works now.

Such a society would be an oligarchy and there has never been one of those that was not tyrannical. I agree with wufwugy that this would end up in totalitarianism. It would not matter if 99% of the population was not bananaist, if the rich person paying for the hospital, school or soup kitchen was a bananaist, then in most cases if you wanted treatment, an education or food, at the very least you would have to listen to the principles of bananaism and attempts to convert you. If you did not conform to the principles of bananaism, then you would get no help. And what could you do about that? Boycott the bananaist's company? Who would care amongst all the PR propaganda persuading everyone about its caring, charitable and non-banaist activities.

The argument is interesting though. I have never understood the advocates of small government and had no clue that some thought this would be more compassionate.

[a500lbgorilla]

Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than others

This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though

Hmmm, I want to go deeper. I N C E P T I O N

[Lyric]

Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.

If you walk into a forest and build a house from the trees, you have created wealth -- the house is worth more than the trees. If the house burns or is destroyed, the wealth you created is gone.

If you grow tomatoes in your back yard, harvest them and create a pasta sauce, you have created wealth. If you eat the sauce, the wealth is destroyed.

This is how money is created -- when a home is built, tomatoes are grown, or when anything of value is created or discovered. All of these things bring new money into the world and make the world a more comfortable place.

[wufwugy]

I have never understood the advocates of small government and had no clue that some thought this would be more compassionate.

There are a lot of different ways and levels upon which this can be described, but I'll approach it with the the most fundamental yet meaningful way I know how

Humans are naturally wrong. The survival of our ancestry was dependent upon being wrong much more often than being right. Here's why: when you're in the jungle and there's a strange sound behind a bush, you have two options, 1) treat it like it's a danger or 2) treat it like it's not a danger. Now, the vast majority of the time, the noise is not a danger. It's a squirrel or the wind or whatever, but a certain small fraction of the time it's a tiger and that's all it takes to end your life. This and other scenarios is why humans (and all animals) have incredibly strong positive affirmations that are ultimately irrational. Because if we didn't, we wouldn't have survived.

So yeah, when our ancestors were walking through the jungle and heard a strange sound, they were "wrong" by responding to it as if it were danger, but that's also the only way they could promote survival. This carries over to everything we do and are today. If you take everything humans believe, the vast vast majority of it is wrong, but because we believe it it makes sense to us and all that.

Human biology has evolved to normally believe the most ridiculous things ever make total sense, and the more complicated and abstract things become, the worse this is. Things like economics are so difficult to understand that only a tiny fraction of people who express thought on the matter have the slightest clue of what they're doing, and their correct analysis also comes exclusively from proper usage of the scientific method. One of the biggest "thought-crimes" people make is thinking that "sense" has any bearing on truth. The only bearing on truth is demonstrable observation, and that really has no discernible correlation with "sense"

[a500lbgorilla]

If you walk into a forest and build a house from the trees, you have created wealth -- the house is worth more than the trees. If the house burns or is destroyed, the wealth you created is gone.

If you grow tomatoes in your back yard, harvest them and create a pasta sauce, you have created wealth. If you eat the sauce, the wealth is destroyed.

This is how money is created -- when a home is built, tomatoes are grown, or when anything of value is created or discovered. All of these things bring new money into the world and make the world a more comfortable place.

I like this. Both that order yields wealth and consumers destroy it.

Of all the combinations of the trees, a house is better than a mishmash of lumber like a pile, or a tall stack of wood.

But the idea that new money is created doesn't make sense to me. If the tomatoes are grown, that means that something else isn't grown, and beyond that something is taken from the world to create those tomatoes, so even their wealth creation is coupled with some negative wealth in some sense.

[wufwugy]

If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor. Therefore a person needs society to be rich, and therefore is in debt to society.

I really like this. Examples and analogies often need elements of extremism in order to more obviously illustrate the point. The whole "it takes two to tango" thing is lost on so many people. The amount of factors which other people are "responsible" for that promote an individual's level of wealth are innumerable

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Hmmm, I want to go deeper. I N C E P T I O N

Money really isn't something you need a PhD to understand. It's easy to imagine what money is if you imagine what it would be like if there was none. Let's take a simple example. Let's say there's a chair maker and a horse breeder. The breeder wants chairs and the chairmaker wants a horse. They decide to trade 5 chairs for a horse.

Well what if the breeder doesn't want chairs? Then the chair maker has to trade his chairs for something the breeder wants. Here's where money comes into play. People essentially exchanged their chairs, horses, pigs, cigarettes, etc, for a synthetic thing that represented what they are worth. So the chairmaker went to the bank and asked for money for his chairs. But the bank doesn't want to deal with selling chairs, or horses, or pigs. So instead, they say they'll give the chairmaker money = to the value of his chairs. And now he buys a horse, and once he sells his chairs to someone else he pays back the bank. This allows the chairmaker to buy a horse without spending weeks trying to sell his chairs for something the breeder wants.

Money is just a chair, horse, or pig. If we win $100 in poker it's the exact same thing as winning two pigs, actually it's a lot better cause I don't want to pigs nor do I want to find someone who wants them. This is why we pay banks (through interest) to give us currency.

Wealth is created by producing a good or a service. Wealth is destroyed when someone uses that good or service.

In terms of the "If we grow a tomato, it means we're not growing a cucumber" thing, you're still creating a tomato. The only zero-sum possibility of this event is if we grow nothing at all.

[a500lbgorilla]

I like this. Both that order yields wealth and consumers destroy it.

Of all the combinations of the trees, a house is better than a mishmash of lumber like a pile, or a tall stack of wood.

But the idea that new money is created doesn't make sense to me. If the tomatoes are grown, that means that something else isn't grown, and beyond that something is taken from the world to create those tomatoes, so even their wealth creation is coupled with some negative wealth in some sense.

Unless wealth is born only to be destroyed. Hmm, I'm liking this more and more as I think on it.

Whatever it takes to make the tomatoes, to make the sauce, to make the meal that you enjoy at Restaurant XYZ, it builds in "value", in "order", until you finally destroy it all for a fee.

But that still means that wealth is a zero sum game, we just hope the wealth created is in Man's hands and the wealth destroyed is shouldered by infinite reservoirs.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Another underlying concept that seems to support your theories is the idea that having earned an amount of money, it is yours to do with as you please. I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it again is way off base. If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor.

Read my post above. If there is one person in the world he can be rich or poor. He can grow a lot of vegetables, hunt a lot, he can make a game to pass the time, basically, he could work so he can be happy and healthy which are two things he probably values. If he works hard and makes a lot of things that make him happy and healthy, he is wealthy. If he doesn't work, doesn't grow shit, and doesn't do anything to help entertain himself, he's gonna be poor. And probably depressed.

[a500lbgorilla]

Money really isn't something you need a PhD to understand. It's easy to imagine what money is if you imagine what it would be like if there was none. Let's take a simple example. Let's say there's a chair maker and a horse breeder. The breeder wants chairs and the chairmaker wants a horse. They decide to trade 5 chairs for a horse.

Well what if the breeder doesn't want chairs? Then the chair maker has to trade his chairs for something the breeder wants. Here's where money comes into play. People essentially exchanged their chairs, horses, pigs, cigarettes, etc, for a synthetic thing that represented what they are worth. So the chairmaker went to the bank and asked for money for his chairs. But the bank doesn't want to deal with selling chairs, or horses, or pigs. So instead, they say they'll give the chairmaker money = to the value of his chairs. And now he buys a horse, and once he sells his chairs to someone else he pays back the bank. This allows the chairmaker to buy a horse without spending weeks trying to sell his chairs for something the breeder wants.

Money is just a chair, horse, or pig. If we win $100 in poker it's the exact same thing as winning two pigs, actually it's a lot better cause I don't want to pigs nor do I want to find someone who wants them. This is why we pay banks (through interest) to give us currency.

Wealth is created by producing a good or a service. Wealth is destroyed when someone uses that good or service.

In terms of the "If we grow a tomato, it means we're not growing a cucumber" thing, you're still creating a tomato. The only zero-sum possibility of this event is if we grow nothing at all.

Yeah, I understand money as the irreducible unit of trade, but the "if we grow a tomato we aren't growing a cucumber" isn't accurate. It means we're drawing all the bits and pieces of light, minerals and water that it takes to make a tomato from something. Wealth is created when you coax order (according to us) out of something. The tomatoes are only grown through the ordering of all the light, minerals and water used in their growth. It wasn't wealth until they were combined appropriately (according to us).

[a500lbgorilla]

Cool stuff, I feel like I learned something important today. Thanks, Lyric.

Mainly that: wealth is like the opposite of entropy. Entropy is a description of the increasing disorder of all closed systems, wealth is a measure of the "order." I put it in quotes because it isn't a true value but a judged one.

[wufwugy]

Read my post above. If there is one person in the world he can be rich or poor. He can grow a lot of vegetables, hunt a lot, he can make a game to pass the time, basically, he could work so he can be happy and healthy which are two things he probably values. If he works hard and makes a lot of things that make him happy and healthy, he is wealthy. If he doesn't work, doesn't grow shit, and doesn't do anything to help entertain himself, he's gonna be poor. And probably depressed.

Human history has had ample experimentation with regards to this. The solitary man cannot get even remotely a fraction of the level of richness than is possible with the kind of society we live in today.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Unless wealth is born only to be destroyed. Hmm, I'm liking this more and more as I think on it.

Whatever it takes to make the tomatoes, to make the sauce, to make the meal that you enjoy at Restaurant XYZ, it builds in "value", in "order", until you finally destroy it all for a fee.

But that still means that wealth is a zero sum game, we just hope the wealth created is in Man's hands and the wealth destroyed is shouldered by infinite reservoirs.

This sounds very buddhist, they always talk about how the duality of nature.

I understand your point but wealth still cannot possibly be a zero sum game. We are all much wealthier because of free trade than we would be if we were fending for ourselves, this is very clear right? In a non zero sum game I imagine things can still be destroyed. Also, if a tomato is more valued than squash than you create more wealth by growing a tomato, more than the wealth lost by growing a squash.

Also, I think if you think of something besides food it makes more sense. For example, if I decide to spend that day as someones personal assistant I have created wealth. Would you consider sitting on my ass and doing nothing instead destroying it?

[Lyric]

However there are a few points that you have kept hammering away at that stand out to me as being flat out wrong. One of them being the idea that charity can make up for the financial deficit created in the absence of income taxes.

Most of the richest men in the modern era have given away most of their fortunes at the end of their lifetimes. Rockefeller earned 900 million and gave away 550 million before his death.

Carnegie invented the public library, funding 3,000 libraries and funding them with 250,000 to 500,000 dollars each. He promoted spelling and literacy and before him books were not easily accessible to the lower classes. He gave away 351 million before he died, and his last 30 million was donated to charity after his death.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet plan to give away their entire fortunes before they die, and are actively persuading the world's other billionaires to do the same.

The great thing about these guys giving away money is that they are often very shrewd gamblers/assessors to risk and reward. They have a keen mind and use it to put money where it will help society the most. Charities and government may not have the same abilities or strong desires to help the world -- they may be motivated by religion or helping advance political or business agendas.

Most billionaires of the modern era end up giving away much of their fortunes before they die.

[a500lbgorilla]

This sounds very buddhist, they always talk about how the duality of nature.

I understand your point but wealth still cannot possibly be a zero sum game. We are all much wealthier because of free trade than we would be if we were fending for ourselves, this is very clear right?

Super clear, but that doesn't mean my view is wrong. If we enjoy all the value while the negative value is shouldered by the sun, soil and some sweat, it can still be a zero sum game.

Also, I think if you think of something besides food it makes more sense. For example, if I decide to spend that day as someones personal assistant I have created wealth. Would you consider sitting on my ass and doing nothing instead destroying it?

I see how being a personal assistant for a day is creating wealth because you're creating some sense of "order" but you're also destroying certain wealthy things, not that you could have been curing cancer in the same time, but that you're consuming water, salts, minerals, fats, proteins, all things taken to fuel your "order" creation, all drain on the possible total wealth of the world.

Does that make sense? I guess a logical question I'd like to ask is: Is there a maximum amount of value that we could possibly create on Earth?

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Human history has had ample experimentation with regards to this. The solitary man cannot get even remotely a fraction of the level of richness than is possible with the kind of society we live in today.

I was merely pointing out that boosts idea, that one man on his own living in a world can not be rich or poor, was incorrect.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I guess a logical question I'd like to ask is: Is there a maximum amount of value that we could possibly create on Earth?

I'm pretty sure the amount of value "created" every year is exponentially increasing, because the certain things create a better opportunity to create value. It seems to me that the logical answer is close to infinity.

[a500lbgorilla]

Most of the richest men in the modern era have given away most of their fortunes at the end of their lifetimes. Rockefeller earned 900 million and gave away 550 million before his death.

Carnegie invented the public library, funding 3,000 libraries and funding them with 250,000 to 500,000 dollars each. He promoted spelling and literacy and before him books were not easily accessible to the lower classes. He gave away 351 million before he died, and his last 30 million was donated to charity after his death.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet plan to give away their entire fortunes before they die, and are actively persuading the world's other billionaires to do the same.

The great thing about these guys giving away money is that they are often very shrewd gamblers/assessors to risk and reward. They have a keen mind and use it to put money where it will help society the most. Charities and government may not have the same abilities or strong desires to help the world -- they may be motivated by religion or helping advance political or business agendas.

Most billionaires of the modern era end up giving away much of their fortunes before they die.

Post more, please.

I was going to make the point that: doesn't that mean it's ok to tax the rich if they all see their wealth as too much but I ran my self through to the conclusion that: if they decide that, let them decide how to spend it, not the people. I can only wonder about the people who become billionaires and do not seek charitable endeavors.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm pretty sure the amount of value "created" every year is exponentially increasing, because the certain things create a better opportunity to create value. It seems to me that the logical answer is close to infinity.

So you think that an infinite amount of wealth exists? That does not make any sense to me, as something must go into creating that infinite wealth, that infinite "order", and even the most infinite of reservoirs aren't truly infinite.

I can't explain it thoroughly but I am saying No to the idea of the possibility of infinite wealth.

[Lyric]

Another underlying concept that seems to support your theories is the idea that having earned an amount of money, it is yours to do with as you please. I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it again is way off base. If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor. Therefore a person needs society to be rich, and therefore is in debt to society. I understand that this is super simplified and turns economy into a zero sum game...

One man on an island can be rich or poor. He can by lazy -- catching one fish per day and have nothing, or he can work every day and build a comfortable house, clothing, running water, bathrooms and sewage. He can domesticate animals for food, eggs, milk. He can build a small farm and store grains for later use. He can create drugs and medicines by experimenting with plant life and create alcohol by fermenting grains. He can bake bread, and make cheese for long term storage of milk.

He can begin to accumulate wealth on the island even as one man, and enjoy a life of luxury through hard work and storage of food (saving).

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Does that make sense? I guess a logical question I'd like to ask is: Is there a maximum amount of value that we could possibly create on Earth?

I get your point now. The problem is past the things that help us survive and stay alive, value is relative. Everyone in the world thinks bread is valuable but what about a computer? I may find a computer ridiculously valuable but someone else may find it worthless. Its my understanding that a free market provides the most relative wealth for the most people.

[wufwugy]

Post more, please.

I was going to make the point that: doesn't that mean it's ok to tax the rich if they all see their wealth as too much but I ran my self through to the conclusion that: if they decide that, let them decide how to spend it, not the people. I can only wonder about the people who become billionaires and do not seek charitable endeavors.

The whole charity idea and how some very wealthy people have given away fortunes is rather skewy. It sounds good on the surface, but doesn't work systemically, and if it either did work or was even possible to work, results would almost definitely be different today.

Charity as anything other than a small segment of economic activity is unsustainable and has a much lower multiplier than other known factors like progressive taxation. The numbers also appear much bigger than they really are since most wealth is not as "disposable" as people may think. But really the lack of sustainability is an enormous negative with replacing strong policy with charity

[a500lbgorilla]

I get your point now. The problem is past the things that help us survive and stay alive, value is relative. Everyone in the world thinks bread is valuable but what about a computer? I may find a computer ridiculously valuable but someone else may find it worthless. Its my understanding that a free market provides the most relative wealth for the most people. My understanding is trying to regulate the free market is like making people buy a bunch of computers even when they don't want them.

Hmmm, I like this. I can't say anything right now but it's a good direction to head. Now I need to learn more about precisely what a free market is.

[a500lbgorilla]

One man on an island can be rich or poor. He can by lazy -- catching one fish per day and have nothing, or he can work every day and build a comfortable house, clothing, running water, bathrooms and sewage. He can domesticate animals for food, eggs, milk. He can build a small farm and store grains for later use. He can create drugs and medicines by experimenting with plant life and create alcohol by fermenting grains. He can bake bread, and make cheese for long term storage of milk.

He can begin to accumulate wealth on the island even as one man, and enjoy a life of luxury through hard work and storage of food (saving).

Chinese fortune cookie say: Find yourself posting more, good happiness come to all.

[Lyric]

So you think that an infinite amount of wealth exists? That does not make any sense to me, as something must go into creating that infinite wealth, that infinite "order", and even the most infinite of reservoirs aren't truly infinite.

I can't explain it thoroughly but I am saying No to the idea of the possibility of infinite wealth.

Our wealth is only limited by our ability to create usable energy. The sun will grow to absorb the earth in 5 billion years. Until then the sun is giving us energy, the center of the earth is giving us usable energy, and we have the technology to create miniature "suns" on earth (nuclear power). There is enough uranium in the outer crust of the earth to support industrialized life for much longer than 5 billion years, so our wealth is effectively only theoretically limited by time, unless we can leave the planet and live further from the sun.

[wufwugy]

One man on an island can be rich or poor. He can by lazy -- catching one fish per day and have nothing, or he can work every day and build a comfortable house, clothing, running water, bathrooms and sewage. He can domesticate animals for food, eggs, milk. He can build a small farm and store grains for later use. He can create drugs and medicines by experimenting with plant life and create alcohol by fermenting grains. He can bake bread, and make cheese for long term storage of milk.

He can begin to accumulate wealth on the island even as one man, and enjoy a life of luxury through hard work and storage of food (saving).

Only a fraction of this stuff is possible for one man, would require virtually all his time, and the technology to do so is on the backs of preexisting society. Luxury and wealth really are not ideas that came about until societies began developing elaborately

[a500lbgorilla]

Our wealth is only limited by our ability to create usable energy. The sun will grow to absorb the earth in 5 billion years. Until then the sun is giving us energy, the center of the earth is giving us usable energy, and we have the technology to create miniature "suns" on earth (nuclear power). There is enough uranium in the outer crust of the earth to support industrialized life for much longer than 5 billion years, so our wealth is effectively only theoretically limited by time, unless we can leave the planet and live further from the sun.

Still says there is a maximum wealth that isn't infinite, and that that maximum is coupled with the spent energy used for the creation of said wealth.

edit huge aside: have you heard of thorium reactors? YouTube - Thorium Remix 2009 - LFTR in 25 Minutes

[Lyric]

Hmmm, I like this. I can't say anything right now but it's a good direction to head. Now I need to learn more about precisely what a free market is.

A free market is a default market. Is is people exchanging wealth with each other. A man who makes cheese exchanges one wheel for a bottle of wine made by another man. Both men enjoy a higher quality of life because of the exchange.

Before the exchange one man only had cheese and the other only had wine. After the exchange they both have cheese and wine and have done no additional work. In this way a free market improves life on earth.

A regulated market is any type of barrier to trade between the man with cheese and the man with wine.

[a500lbgorilla]

A free market is a default market. Is is people exchanging wealth with each other. A man who makes cheese exchanges one wheel for a bottle of wine made by another man. Both men enjoy a higher quality of life because of the exchange.

Before the exchange one man only had cheese and the other only had wine. After the exchange they both have cheese and wine and have done no additional work. In this way a free market improves life on earth.

A regulated market is any type of barrier to trade between the man with cheese and the man with wine.

I want to ask: pretend there exists in this world a small country with no natural wealth but a completely free market, how would the world react?

But I'm not sure I even understand all the variables I'm supposed to hold constant or where possible answers could lead.

So instead, do you feel like a free market is a realizable construct in this world?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Boost, sorry this got washed away in the midst of tons of posting. I'd like to comment on it.

Danny, I am not well versed in economics, so I am trying to stick to the sidelines here.

However there are a few points that you have kept hammering away at that stand out to me as being flat out wrong. One of them being the idea that charity can make up for the financial deficit created in the absence of income taxes. At best, as I believe Wilbur pointed out, we would have a blotchy landscape of well funded schools with special interest leanings in some regions and woefully underfunded schools in other regions. Or, there could be a central charity (government run? independent? not sure it matters) that would distribute the charitable donations more evenly. Yet I still fail to be convinced that you truly believe that these charitable donations would be enough to fund schools to today's levels (woefully underfunded) much less to the standards that they should be funded.

There would be tons of money to go around to the public school system without income tax. There are tons of unneccessary things the government pays for that should be cut, which would make up for the loss of revenue from income taxes.

You keep suggesting that the window to peoples values is a view of their check book. Yet you are missing a fundamental concept in that when a person becomes rich and can afford the highest private school for his child without even blinking, he has no reason to value a public school system. So without a need, we have no value; without value, we have no charity. So essentially the schooling of the less than rich is left to the less than rich. Maybe you think this is fair, but it just divides the classes further and makes the classes more self perpetuating through the generations than they already are.

I don't think without a need we have no value. I value the the opportunity for children to go through school even though I wouldn't die if it didn't happen. I value gambling without needing to do it. I also disagree with the assessment that schooling the less than rich is up to the less than rich. My high school was very poor, yet ran almost solely on charitable donations of the rich people in the communities money. At the same time, if a hole is there was I assume it was in the past, I think schools can be helped by tax money, as I assume happened.

Another underlying concept that seems to support your theories is the idea that having earned an amount of money, it is yours to do with as you please. I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it again is way off base. If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor. Therefore a person needs society to be rich, and therefore is in debt to society. I understand that this is super simplified and turns economy into a zero sum game, but I think it proves my point just the same.

A person is much better off with a society to trade with. In fact, everyone is. But a rich person isn't in debt to society. He become rich through the voluntary exchange of money from goods or services he created or helped create. The people who worked for him voluntarily exchanged their time and effort for his money. Everyone is free to end this contract anytime. For example, a chef could stop working for an owner of a restaurant who is making tons of money while the chef doesn't make much and open his own restaurant. But what he will find is that the owner of the restaurant he previously worked for did not just have money fall into his lap because he owned the means of production. He took on a shitload of risk and was able to run his business well, not an easy thing to do.

I think the strongest counter to your argument as a whole is that people pay taxes. If you can claim that, despite being threatened with starvation, the poorest person still has a choice between monsanto and the higher-priced/harder-to-come-by local organic and in making that choice is supporting the practices and ideals of the producer; then the flip side of the coin is that Joe Billionaire is making a choice to pay taxes, and by making that choice is supporting where those taxes go by choice. He is threatened with jail time, and they are threatened with death.

The difference between these two examples is joe billionaire is threatened by force of the state and the poor person is not.

The libertarian house is built on a sandy lot.. it looks like a great place to live, but even the most superficial inspection reveals that the foundation is sinking.

I don't think this is true but there's nothing really to argue here.


side notes: I do not think either of you (max/danny) have rebutted the theory that a strong middle class is necessary for a strong economy and therefore is beneficial to the upper class. That of course goes hand in hand with the theory that a strong middle class is created by social safety nets funded by taxation. As far as I know (and like I said, I am not very well versed in economics) this is theory insomuch as the theory of evolution is theory.

I was not aware that a strong middle class is necessary for a strong economy. I do believe however the middle class would be stronger without taxation and safety nets.

Note this argument I'm about to use is likely flawed because I'm not an economic expert.

Businesses currently pay about 33% of their income in taxes. That's a lot of money. Because less taxes create a more profitable market, more businesses will start up to compete and grab their share. This would add competition to salaries, increasing wages in that industry. Businesses also would have more money to provide health care to their workers. Any owner who decided to hoard this money instead would lose his market to better businesses. Also, because profits are large, goods and services could be offered for cheaper, benefitting the poor.

Also I do not believe either of you have commented on the question about a 100% inheritance tax.

This is my comment. A person who has earned money can do whatever they want with it, including giving it to their children or wife.

[a500lbgorilla]

The whole charity idea and how some very wealthy people have given away fortunes is rather skewy. It sounds good on the surface, but doesn't work systemically, and if it either did work or was even possible to work, results would almost definitely be different today.

Charity as anything other than a small segment of economic activity is unsustainable and has a much lower multiplier than other known factors like progressive taxation. The numbers also appear much bigger than they really are since most wealth is not as "disposable" as people may think. But really the lack of sustainability is an enormous negative with replacing strong policy with charity

But isn't it also true that if you create an authoritative body to oversee the distribution of resources to the needy based on the demands of voters, that that system also has obvious short comings similar to just hoping the super rich find themselves in a charitable mood?

edit, though I guess I don't have a good sense of how well charity could weigh against gov't programs.

edit edit and even the charities you give the money to are exposed to the similar shortfalls as the gov't. Hmmm.

[Lyric]

Still says there is a maximum wealth that isn't infinite, and that that maximum is coupled with the spent energy used for the creation of said wealth.

Our potential to create wealth is effectively limitless. The waste products of nuclear power are so small that they are a non-issue except in political propaganda, and are 95% recyclable (currently illegal in the US).

Currently we power about 20% of America with nuclear, and if we pooled all of the waste that has ever been created in the history of time it would form a cube 12 feet on each side. If we recycled that waste we could get rid of 95% of the cube, and we can store it safely without danger to the world long enough for it to lose its radioactivity.

I guess the only real limit on wealth would come after we harnessed the light from every star and had used every grain of sand in the universe as nuclear fuel, and then recycled all of it at 95% efficiency until it was all a pile of waste... but we could then wait a few thousand years and do it all over again, so no, there is no real limit on wealth creation, in theory, even if we harness the entire energetic potential of the universe!

[IowaSkinsFan]

So you think that an infinite amount of wealth exists? That does not make any sense to me, as something must go into creating that infinite wealth, that infinite "order", and even the most infinite of reservoirs aren't truly infinite.

I can't explain it thoroughly but I am saying No to the idea of the possibility of infinite wealth.

Well, you are right it is finite. All I was saying is there is a shitload of it.

[wufwugy]

Regulation should be viewed like rules and referees in a sporting event. Without it, the game doesn't work, the players are capable of "making their own rules", and getting away with a ton of foul play, etc.

On the flip side, stupid rules and stupid referees can really harm the system. Bring in a rule for the NFL that every fifth step an athlete takes he has to spike the ball then you get something fucking retarded and will ruin the entire thing.

Regulations and intervention are absolutely necessary in order for any economic system, it's just about regulating intelligently. On that point, I watched an interview with chief "de-regulation" libertarian Peter Schiff, and he unwittingly belied his own position by stating "we need less regulation but smarter regulation". Apparently, he either doesn't realize or slipped up in not openly acknowledging that quantity of regulation is inconsequential, but quality is what's important

Libertarians are closet socialists, they just don't know it nor how to implement their ideas correctly. But that's true about most self-identifying conservatives as well. Polling that negates prejudices shows that people who vote all over the political spectrum and claim to have all these different ideas, really don't, and are actually strongly liberal and socialist and all that stuff. The disconnect is primarily in inability to correctly compare politics and policy

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, you are right it is finite. All I was saying is there is a shitload of it.

This answer I like. Still means a zero sum game to me, just that we can finagle the negative away from human interests.

[a500lbgorilla]

Regulation should be viewed like rules and referees in a sporting event. Without it, the game doesn't work, the players are capable of "making their own rules", and getting away with a ton of foul play, etc.

On the flip side, stupid rules and stupid referees can really harm the system. Bring in a rule for the NFL that every fifth step an athlete takes he has to spike the ball then you get something fucking retarded and will ruin the entire thing.

Regulations and intervention are absolutely necessary in order for any economic system, it's just about regulating intelligently. On that point, I watched an interview with chief "de-regulation" libertarian Peter Schiff, and he unwittingly belied his own position by stating "we need less regulation but smarter regulation". Apparently, he either doesn't realize or slipped up in not openly acknowledging that quantity of regulation is inconsequential, but quality is what's importantly

This is how I feel the free market need collide with reality right now. But I can't really say I fully understand either the free market or reality.

[Lyric]

if you create an authoritative body to oversee the distribution of resources to the needy based on the demands of voters, that that system also has obvious short comings similar to just hoping the super rich find themselves in a charitable mood?

Imagine our island with the hard working man has two more men arrive with nothing, and the new men catch one fish per day. Sometimes they catch two fish and trade it for cheese or wine. Instead of making a home, making tools, or fishing more, they live on the beach and do nothing, consuming as much as they create.

They form a "government" for the three men and decide to take half of the hard working man's cheese, wine, grains, tools, and animals and "redistribute" them to the new islanders.

This redistribution only encourages the rich man to stop working and encourages the lazy men to stay lazy, and eventually the island has less of everything because of the government.

[wufwugy]

But isn't it also true that if you create an authoritative body to oversee the distribution of resources to the needy based on the demands of voters, that that system also has obvious short comings similar to just hoping the super rich find themselves in a charitable mood?

edit, though I guess I don't have a good sense of how well charity could weigh against gov't programs.

edit edit and even the charities you give the money to are exposed to the similar shortfalls as the gov't. Hmmm.

It has shortcomings, just fewer.

If the paradigm is made simplistic into something like charity vs democratic taxation, then we apply it to the world's history, we'll find that when taxation is expressed more fully you find nations with strong human rights and standard of living like Sweden, and when charity (actually it would be "potential charity" since by its own definition, charity is voluntary) is expressed more fully you find nations with dreadful human rights and standard of living like Iran

Charity as a primary mover in society fails miserably. The only way to change this would be to genetically modify human biology

[wufwugy]

This redistribution only encourages the rich man to stop working and encourages the lazy men to stay lazy, and eventually the island has less of everything because of the government.

This is a straw man of democratic, progressive taxation, and all you have to do to see the plethora of evidence is look to when the different paradigms have been implemented in different societies

This stuff isn't a matter of opinion, but of the facts

[a500lbgorilla]

Imagine our island with the hard working man has two more men arrive with nothing, and the new men catch one fish per day. Sometimes they catch two fish and trade it for cheese or wine. Instead of making a home, making tools, or fishing more, they live on the beach and do nothing, consuming as much as they create.

They form a "government" for the three men and decide to take half of the hard working man's cheese, wine, grains, tools, and animals and "redistribute" them to the new islanders.

This redistribution only encourages the rich man to stop working and encourages the lazy men to stay lazy, and eventually the island has less of everything because of the government.

Shouldn't the two men be more appropriately legless or armless? To say govt functions to take from hardworkers and give to those lazing around on the beach is a bit off.

[Lyric]

No matter how you slice it, the people who acquire more do so with the aid of those who acquire less. No matter how you slice it, the lucky ride on the backs of the unlucky.

A man who arrives on an island alone and builds a home, farms, makes tools, etc is creating wealth for himself and is not riding on the back of anyone else.

If two men are on the island and one fishes a little and sleeps on the beach, and the other man works hard on the other side of the island, how is the working man riding on the back of the other man?

[wufwugy]

A man who arrives on an island alone and builds a home, farms, makes tools, etc is creating wealth for himself and is not riding on the back of anyone else.

If two men are on the island and one fishes a little and sleeps on the beach, and the other man works hard on the other side of the island, how is the working man riding on the back of the other man?

Still a straw man when compared to modern society. Like, a huge one, at that. You're pretty spot on in your scenario, but its comparison to modern economies is unfounded

[Lyric]

Shouldn't the two men be more appropriately legless or armless? To say govt functions to take from hardworkers and give to those lazing around on the beach is a bit off.

Okay, so an legless man (poor) and two able bodied (middle class) men arrive. They vote to take 50% of the hard working (rich) man's stuff and give it to the disabled man each year. Same result. Rich guy stops working so hard, encourages armless man to be lazy instead of attempting to help the island society, and the entire island has less food, medicines, wine, and new technology.

Soon the government workers (middle class guys) begin taking more and more of the 50% as salary and benefits for their hard work redistributing the wealth, and eventually they begin giving that 50% to their friends in banking and the auto industry instead of the legless man.

It's also unlikely that the hard working man would allow the legless man to starve to death, seeing the track record for the richest men in the modern era, who routinely give away all of their money. I would be willing to bet that 90%+ of random people would be unwilling to allow the legless man to die, and that is why private charity is effective. With a few people on the island the chance of anyone being allowed to die is near zero.

[Lyric]

Still a straw man when compared to modern society. Like, a huge one, at that. You're pretty spot on in your scenario, but its comparison to modern economies is unfounded

I've found that analyzing complex problems is easier if it is reduced to its most basic form and building up from there. Understanding is more easily lost if we attempt to start at complex.

We can continue to add people to the island, but the ideas apply to modern society as well as they do here on a two man island. See my above example regarding a legless man and two normal men arriving on the island.

[Lyric]

Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than others

This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though

An island with two men on it is an economy. Economy is the word we use to describe creation and exchange of wealth. On an island the entire economy would be two men exchanging their wealth -- food, medicine, shelter, and tools. They would be creating these things and exchanging them, creating a two man island "economy."

It is only complicated if you look at millions of people at one time.

[wufwugy]

I've found that analyzing complex problems is easier if it is reduced to its most basic form and building up from there. Understanding is more easily lost if we attempt to start at complex.

We can continue to add people to the island, but the ideas apply to modern society as well as they do here on a two man island. See my above example regarding a legless man and two normal men arriving on the island.

Your idea of breaking things down is correct, but your application is like understanding microbiology by breaking down cosmology. Modern society and your small island society operate on very different paradigms. Don't kid yourself into thinking you can cross compare to come up with any semblance of a conclusion

[a500lbgorilla]

I've found that analyzing complex problems is easier if it is reduced to its most basic form and building up from there. Understanding is more easily lost if we attempt to start at complex.

Firstly, yes.

Okay, so an legless man (poor) and two able bodied (middle class) men arrive. They vote to take 50% of the hard working (rich) man's stuff and give it to the disabled man each year. Same result. Rich guy stops working so hard, encourages armless man to be lazy instead of attempting to help the island society, and the entire island has less food, medicines, wine, and new technology.

Soon the government workers (middle class guys) begin taking more and more of the 50% as salary and benefits for their hard work redistributing the wealth, and eventually they begin giving that 50% to their friends in banking and the auto industry instead of the legless man.

It's also unlikely that the hard working man would allow the legless man to starve to death, seeing the track record for the richest men in the modern era, who routinely give away all of their money. I would be willing to bet that 90%+ of random people would be unwilling to allow the legless man to die, and that is why private charity is effective. With a few people on the island the chance of anyone being allowed to die is near zero.

Secondly, I'm a bit lost. Who all is on the island? Why does the rich guy stop working so hard? And I ask that question under the auspices of

YouTube - RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

That money isn't a direct motivation for getting awesome things done.

So tell me about the island with 3 legless/armless men, 2 workers (middle class) and 1 wealthy man with means for producing, without labor, cheese and wine.

[wufwugy]

An island with two men on it is an economy. Economy is the word we use to describe creation and exchange of wealth. On an island the entire economy would be two men exchanging their wealth -- food, medicine, shelter, and tools. They would be creating these things and exchanging them, creating a two man island "economy."

It is only complicated if you look at millions of people at one time.

You're equivocating scales. There's a reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms, and it's the same reason it is false to compare a two man economy with a million man one. The models themselves are fundamentally different

[wufwugy]

Secondly, I'm a bit lost. Who all is on the island? Why does the rich guy stop working so hard?

Two, three, twenty, a million, all, and none. It's a fantasy island smorgasbord of cherry picked ideas and circumstances.

[a500lbgorilla]

You're equivocating scales. There's a reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms, and it's the same reason it is false to compare a two man economy with a million man one. The models themselves are fundamentally different

The reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms is, for me, a terrible analogue for anything else.

[Lyric]

But the idea that new money is created doesn't make sense to me. If the tomatoes are grown, that means that something else isn't grown, and beyond that something is taken from the world to create those tomatoes, so even their wealth creation is coupled with some negative wealth in some sense.

The most common error in economic thought is assuming that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world.

99% of the raw material for the tomatoes comes from the air. The plant uses the sun's energy to break carbon dioxide into its basic parts -- oxygen and carbon. It then builds its body and fruit from the carbon and exhausts oxygen into the atmosphere, where it is used by animals to breath.

1% of the tomato plant material comes from the soil, and that is replaced when the animals that eat the plant shit on the ground.

The tomato is produced using the energy of the sun (at near 100% efficiency!), which is also never lost; the energy is simply transferred into the tomato plant and can be used by animals as food calories, where food is chemically burned to yield energy for muscles.

[a500lbgorilla]

Two, three, twenty, a million, all, and none. It's a fantasy island smorgasbord of cherry picked ideas and circumstances.

Still, we both said yes to the idea of simplicity before tackling complexity, so let us test the robustness of this island construct without trying to fit in the awesome amount of people a true first/second world economy handles.

[wufwugy]

The reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms is, for me, a terrible analogue for anything else.

It fits just fine when the point is scales. Any topic can be used, but physics is easier to understand semantically.

In fact, you cannot find a single topic that is semantically designated in broad terms that doesn't change paradigm based on scaling

[Lyric]

Your idea of breaking things down is correct, but your application is like understanding microbiology by breaking down cosmology. Modern society and your small island society operate on very different paradigms. Don't kid yourself into thinking you can cross compare to come up with any semblance of a conclusion

You might have to elaborate on this one. Economics (creation and exchange of stuff) is not dominated by where people think they fit into society's fictitious financial ladder.

These are the fantasies of political agendas. They are not reality.