 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Question re: inequality |
|
Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jim Blair |
 Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:b32f360462]
My question is one, abstract, economics-theory, question. The answer
is "yes" or "no." "Rich or poor" means *how much assets.* No
subjective content was intended.
No one has yet elected to answer the objective question.
It depends what you mean by a "free economy." I would say there is a
natural level of inequality for any given set of institutional
arrangements, and inequality tends to seek that level. If people were
not mortal, it might be possible for certain institutional
arrangements to produce indefinitely increasing inequality, until one
person owned everything.
[/quote:b32f360462]
Hi,
??? What good would it do one person to "own everything"? I mean money is
not much good unless you SPEND it. And spending it transfers if from you to
someone else. And to enjoy life don't you want to spend LOTS of money on
LOTS of things? Cars and travel and houses and fur coats and HDTV and
I-Pods, etc.
And doesn't that send lots of money to lots of other people?
[quote:b32f360462]
I had in mind a formal sequence of logic. I despair of getting
it off first base. Perhaps the subject is too loaded.
Formal logic begins with definitions and premises. Where are they?
-- Roy L
[/quote:b32f360462]
I agree. We can't discuss Masons question intelligently until he defined
what he means. One country or world wide? Relative or Absolute wealth?
The rich/poor "gap" can increase even as everyone is getting "richer" in
absolute terms. Americans can be getting more "unequal" as humanity is
getting more "equal". And I say both of the above have been happening for
the last 30 years at least.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kevin Stickel |
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:6c911173a1]Hi,
??? What good would it do one person to "own everything"? I mean money is
not much good unless you SPEND it. And spending it transfers if from you
to
someone else. And to enjoy life don't you want to spend LOTS of money on
LOTS of things? Cars and travel and houses and fur coats and HDTV and
I-Pods, etc.
And doesn't that send lots of money to lots of other people?
I had in mind a formal sequence of logic. I despair of getting
it off first base. Perhaps the subject is too loaded.
Formal logic begins with definitions and premises. Where are they?
-- Roy L
I agree. We can't discuss Masons question intelligently until he defined
what he means. One country or world wide? Relative or Absolute wealth?
The rich/poor "gap" can increase even as everyone is getting "richer" in
absolute terms. Americans can be getting more "unequal" as humanity is
getting more "equal". And I say both of the above have been happening
for
the last 30 years at least.
[/quote:6c911173a1]
Hi!
I hope you two don't mind, that I am taking part in this discussion, too.
What you mention, Jim, is the effect of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, which
is finally acting in a way we do notice.
regards
Kevin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:51:32 GMT, Mason A. Clark <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
[quote:849c5d0030]Question: Is there or is there not a tendency, in a completely
free economy, for inequality to continually increase?
That is, for the rich to become richer and more numerous and
the poorer to become poorer and more numerous?
Given no organized, governmental or societal, actions to
impede the trend?
Mason C
[/quote:849c5d0030]
"completely free economy" -- each person can do as he pleases
"she's" are of course excluded
"economy" -- the flow and storage of goods and services
"rich" -- those with lots of
"poor" -- those with little of
"numerous" -- uh1 uh2 uh3
"organized" -- the he's despise one another
"governmental" -- he's pretending or actually cooperating
"societal" -- he's letting the she's getting a word in
"trend" -- the drift of it
"is" -- ... now that's too hard for me to define
What did I fail to define?
C'mon you guys, I ain't gonna play no more. You're thinking
of any excuse to avoid the fact that the tendency in all completely
free economies is toward one man owning all. (And it is *not*
impossible. The deposed Shah of Iran asserted that Iran
belonged to him; as "king" he owned it as had all true kings
before him owned their countries.) (He got kicked out.)
My point -- and having made it I will depart -- is that income
and/or wealth REdistribution is essential for stability.
The main -- largest -- budget role of the U.S. federal government
is redistribution by "entitlements" social-security welfare
unemployment insurance food stamps ....... and progressive taxation.
All to often we see here on sci.econ he's who do not
understand this. To them, redistribution is stealing.
Not YOU of course.
Mason C fini |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:8a9683351b]
What you mention, Jim, is the effect of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, which
is finally acting in a way we do notice.
[/quote:8a9683351b]
I just have to point out the obvious. That Invisible Hand, down through
history, has been awfully damned bloody as it busily attended to the
distribution of wealth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:52 am |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 17:11:13 +0100, "Kevin Stickel"
<Kevin.Stickel@uni-essen.de> wrote:
[quote:b2b4ca4686]It depends what you mean by a "free economy." I would say there is a
natural level of inequality for any given set of institutional
arrangements, and inequality tends to seek that level.
I agree with you in most aspects, beside this one:
If people were
not mortal, it might be possible for certain institutional
arrangements to produce indefinitely increasing inequality, until one
person owned everything.
In a "perfect market" (terminus technicus) there can't be a person who owns
_every_thing.
[/quote:b2b4ca4686]
I didn't say the institutional arrangements would necessarily
constitute a perfect market.
[quote:b2b4ca4686]There will be some small share owned by the working people for all times.
[/quote:b2b4ca4686]
We're talking immortals, here. Why are they going to work?
And maybe the institutional arrangements ensure that everyone but the
owner works only for subsistence alotted by the owner.
[quote:b2b4ca4686](Their labour force or something they traded it for)
[/quote:b2b4ca4686]
Maybe, maybe not.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:00 am |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:02:06 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:8f4e918a1f]My question is one, abstract, economics-theory, question. The answer
is "yes" or "no." "Rich or poor" means *how much assets.* No
subjective content was intended.
No one has yet elected to answer the objective question.
It depends what you mean by a "free economy." I would say there is a
natural level of inequality for any given set of institutional
arrangements, and inequality tends to seek that level. If people were
not mortal, it might be possible for certain institutional
arrangements to produce indefinitely increasing inequality, until one
person owned everything.
??? What good would it do one person to "own everything"?
[/quote:8f4e918a1f]
It makes it easy to pick up girls.
[quote:8f4e918a1f]I mean money is
not much good unless you SPEND it.
[/quote:8f4e918a1f]
?? He don' nee' no steenkin' money. He already has everything.
[quote:8f4e918a1f]And spending it transfers if from you to
someone else.
[/quote:8f4e918a1f]
There's no money, because there is nothing for him to spend it on.
[quote:8f4e918a1f]And to enjoy life don't you want to spend LOTS of money on
LOTS of things?
[/quote:8f4e918a1f]
It's even more enjoyable to have everything already, and not have to
spend any money to get anything.
[quote:8f4e918a1f]And doesn't that send lots of money to lots of other people?
[/quote:8f4e918a1f]
They have nothing to offer him.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:09 am |
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:20:27 GMT, Mason C <masonc2@earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote:62c90d972b]C'mon you guys, I ain't gonna play no more. You're thinking
of any excuse to avoid the fact that the tendency in all completely
free economies is toward one man owning all.
[/quote:62c90d972b]
I don't buy it ( ;^). Human beings are imperfect, which would result
in a certain amount of churn as the richest fools made mistakes that
allowed the ablest of the poor to catch up a bit. This sort of
economy has been modeled by physicists simulating grinding and
accretion processes. The process yields a certain equilibrium
distribution, depending on various factors.
[quote:62c90d972b](And it is *not*
impossible. The deposed Shah of Iran asserted that Iran
belonged to him; as "king" he owned it as had all true kings
before him owned their countries.) (He got kicked out.)
[/quote:62c90d972b]
?? What has that to do with a free economy?
[quote:62c90d972b]My point -- and having made it I will depart -- is that income
and/or wealth REdistribution is essential for stability.
[/quote:62c90d972b]
Depends on the direction. Redistribute the wrong way, and it
destabilizes.
[quote:62c90d972b]The main -- largest -- budget role of the U.S. federal government
is redistribution by "entitlements" social-security welfare
unemployment insurance food stamps ....... and progressive taxation.
All to often we see here on sci.econ he's who do not
understand this. To them, redistribution is stealing.
[/quote:62c90d972b]
Yes, and they always refuse to know the fact that what is being
redistributed was itself most likely stolen.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Scheltgen |
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mason C wrote:
[quote:0ac1e871bb]What you mention, Jim, is the effect of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, which
is finally acting in a way we do notice.
I just have to point out the obvious. That Invisible Hand, down through
history, has been awfully damned bloody as it busily attended to the
distribution of wealth.
[/quote:0ac1e871bb]
I think the invisible hand wears a rectal glove. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Xeraan |
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:51ed3106b9]What you mention, Jim, is the effect of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, which
is finally acting in a way we do notice.
I just have to point out the obvious. That Invisible Hand, down through
history, has been awfully damned bloody as it busily attended to the
distribution of wealth.
[/quote:51ed3106b9]
Yeah.... but by whom?
What you can't see, you can't stop. LOL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:42 am |
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:23:33 +0100, "Xeraan" <test@test.de> wrote:
[quote:aa091608e2](Their labour force or something they traded it for)
Maybe, maybe not.
Our system is based on specialisment. Even the "world owner" can't do
everything by himself, right?
He is in need of help. To encourage this help he has to do a trade.
[/quote:aa091608e2]
But he can get any help he desires by trading permission, not
property.
[quote:aa091608e2]Not talking about slavery (or equal systems).
[/quote:aa091608e2]
When natural resources are all privately owned, it is equivalent to
slavery.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:20:27 GMT, Mason C <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote:d61122acf3]On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:51:32 GMT, Mason A. Clark <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
Question: Is there or is there not a tendency, in a completely
free economy, for inequality to continually increase?
That is, for the rich to become richer and more numerous and
the poorer to become poorer and more numerous?
Given no organized, governmental or societal, actions to
impede the trend?
Mason C
"completely free economy" -- each person can do as he pleases
"she's" are of course excluded
"economy" -- the flow and storage of goods and services
"rich" -- those with lots of
"poor" -- those with little of
"numerous" -- uh1 uh2 uh3
"organized" -- the he's despise one another
"governmental" -- he's pretending or actually cooperating
"societal" -- he's letting the she's getting a word in
"trend" -- the drift of it
"is" -- ... now that's too hard for me to define
What did I fail to define?
C'mon you guys, I ain't gonna play no more. You're thinking
of any excuse to avoid the fact that the tendency in all completely
free economies is toward one man owning all. (And it is *not*
impossible. The deposed Shah of Iran asserted that Iran
belonged to him; as "king" he owned it as had all true kings
before him owned their countries.) (He got kicked out.)
My point -- and having made it I will depart -- is that income
and/or wealth REdistribution is essential for stability.
The main -- largest -- budget role of the U.S. federal government
is redistribution by "entitlements" social-security welfare
unemployment insurance food stamps ....... and progressive taxation.
All to often we see here on sci.econ he's who do not
understand this. To them, redistribution is stealing.
Not YOU of course.
Mason C fini
[/quote:d61122acf3]
Here's an o I left one out |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Xeraan |
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:52d44f0f53]C'mon you guys, I ain't gonna play no more. You're thinking
of any excuse to avoid the fact that the tendency in all completely
free economies is toward one man owning all. (And it is *not*
impossible. The deposed Shah of Iran asserted that Iran
belonged to him; as "king" he owned it as had all true kings
before him owned their countries.) (He got kicked out.)
[/quote:52d44f0f53]
And you are thinking Iran is a good example of the free-market system? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Xeraan |
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Skip the fish, we are talkin about immortals. But the house-example is still
working. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:00 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:51:18 +0100, "Xeraan" <test@test.de> wrote:
[quote:f8e0f23a6c]The world
owner needs help, the Not-World owner needs something to eat. If he owns a
fish or gets the "permission" to consume it, makes no difference.
[/quote:f8e0f23a6c]
It might.
[quote:f8e0f23a6c]He needs a
living-space. If he is owning a house, or gets the right to live in one is
practically irrelevant.
[/quote:f8e0f23a6c]
It is very relevant. If he owns it, he cannot be dispossessed by
another private individual.
[quote:f8e0f23a6c]The point is: The world owner cannot own everything, in case he has to do a
trade.
[/quote:f8e0f23a6c]
No, he does not have to trade his property. He can get everything he
wants by trading permissions to use.
[quote:f8e0f23a6c]At least he do not own the right to consume the little fish anymore
(or to live in that house). Permission is a strict subset of property, isn't
it?
[/quote:f8e0f23a6c]
But is not itself property.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Xeraan |
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:45ce68c18f]The point is: The world owner cannot own everything, in case he has to do
a
trade.
No, he does not have to trade his property. He can get everything he
wants by trading permissions to use.
At least he do not own the right to consume the little fish anymore
(or to live in that house). Permission is a strict subset of property,
isn't
it?
But is not itself property.
[/quote:45ce68c18f]
Look: If A is a strict subset of B, then B have all aspects of A (and maybe
some more).
Permission is in all relevant aspects a strict subset of property. Therefor
permission _is_ property.
In case the world-owner has to do a trade, he cannot defend his position of
beeing the world-owner.
I think you have the following idea in your mind:
The world owner has some "friends" who will look after his ass, in exchange
he will take care for their needs. No problem with that.
But the point is: If his friends only drink a beer, which the world-owner
gave him, the world owner instantly looses the full property rights on the
beer.
We are talking about theoretically models. Not in practical terms.
The crucial question is wether he has to do a trade or not.
In case of immortality he has to do a trade, cause at some point in the
future he has transformed all kind ressources in exenergy, which he can only
transform back in energy with research. And so he needs help from other
beeings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:26 am
|
|