| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Question re: inequality |
|
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mason C |
 Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:53:58 +0100, "Xeraan" <test@test.de> wrote:
[quote:35301d0ae0]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.)
And you are thinking Iran is a good example of the free-market system?
Depends on your meaning of "is" -- the Shah *was* -- not *is*.[/quote:35301d0ae0]
In an economic system with no constraints (a perfectly free-market
system) the king is King, the shah is Shah and they own it all.
They didn't sprout from the ground, they grew in an unconstrained
system free of corrective re-distribution.
Mason C |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill |
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mason C wrote:
[quote:f113708bcc]On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:53:58 +0100, "Xeraan" <test@test.de> wrote:
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.)
And you are thinking Iran is a good example of the free-market system?
Depends on your meaning of "is" -- the Shah *was* -- not *is*.
In an economic system with no constraints (a perfectly free-market
system) the king is King, the shah is Shah and they own it all.
They didn't sprout from the ground, they grew in an unconstrained
system free of corrective re-distribution.
Mason C
[/quote:f113708bcc]
I think you miss the point completely.
Given more-or-less perfect competition, margins fall, and
capitalism *itself* levels out the playing field. This is
demonstrable - JP Morgan funded all of Wall Street
out of his own pocket through at least one crisis, and
Bill Gates could barely finance 0.1% of it at his richest.
The Shah had power by installation, not by conquest
nor by election.
You also miss the point of kings. Kings exist to
run herd on the nobles, who are the real economic
power base in the appropriate system ( feudalism ).
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:13:57 GMT, Les Cargill <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com> wrote:
[quote:4cdae4a61d]Mason C wrote:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:53:58 +0100, "Xeraan" <test@test.de> wrote:
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.)
And you are thinking Iran is a good example of the free-market system?
Depends on your meaning of "is" -- the Shah *was* -- not *is*.
In an economic system with no constraints (a perfectly free-market
system) the king is King, the shah is Shah and they own it all.
They didn't sprout from the ground, they grew in an unconstrained
system free of corrective re-distribution.
Mason C
I think you miss the point completely.
Given more-or-less perfect competition, margins fall, and
capitalism *itself* levels out the playing field.
[/quote:4cdae4a61d]
Which accounts for how we're all becoming equally
rich, waiters and waited, gardeners and gardenowners,
bankclerks and bankers, unwity and wity, unlucky and lucky,
dishonest and honest, weak and strong, competition makes
them all equally wealthy.
GREAT !. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Xeraan |
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:f28e3c95fa]Which accounts for how we're all becoming equally
rich, waiters and waited, gardeners and gardenowners,
bankclerks and bankers, unwity and wity, unlucky and lucky,
dishonest and honest, weak and strong, competition makes
them all equally wealthy.
GREAT !.
[/quote:f28e3c95fa]
Indeed it is great that all are becoming equal - based on their initial set
of ressources. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:03 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 18:16:31 +0100, "Xeraan" <test@test.de> wrote:
[quote:0a59ad33e1]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.
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.
[/quote:0a59ad33e1]
No, it's an aspect of property. The continental USA is a strict
subset of North America, but it is not North America.
[quote:0a59ad33e1]In case the world-owner has to do a trade, he cannot defend his position of
beeing the world-owner.
[/quote:0a59ad33e1]
Why not?
[quote:0a59ad33e1]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.
[/quote:0a59ad33e1]
OK, now you are just talking about what owning "everything" means.
[quote:0a59ad33e1]We are talking about theoretically models. Not in practical terms.
The crucial question is wether he has to do a trade or not.
[/quote:0a59ad33e1]
No, the question is, does he have to trade property (and I would say,
economically meaningful property, not just permission to consume
property).
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Xeraan |
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:657befddb3]We are talking about theoretically models. Not in practical terms.
The crucial question is wether he has to do a trade or not.
No, the question is, does he have to trade property (and I would say,
economically meaningful property, not just permission to consume
property).
[/quote:657befddb3]
Is the right to use a registered research (a patent) property? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Trucker |
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:436ce430.17935245@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
[quote:3df82cc1fc]On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:51:18 +0100, "Xeraan" <test@test.de> wrote:
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.
It might.
[/quote:3df82cc1fc]
It makes a huge difference:
1. The world owner can insist that I kiss the butt of
Ja-sus and the butt of Pinocchio or I shall have no
fish.
I suggest that you ponder exactly what makes one the owner
and the other the non-owner. But, never mind. I will just
get more commin law crap. The answer is, of course,
just _force_. The non-owner must be compelled to beg
for a fish.
[quote:3df82cc1fc]He needs a
living-space. If he is owning a house, or gets the right to live in one is
practically irrelevant.
It is very relevant. If he owns it, he cannot be dispossessed by
another private individual.
[/quote:3df82cc1fc]
More importantly, what is being traded for "permission"
to live???
[quote:3df82cc1fc]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.
[/quote:3df82cc1fc]
Yep.
[quote:3df82cc1fc]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.
-- Roy L
[/quote:3df82cc1fc]
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:00:16 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:e5d627fbef]
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:duljm1d7fit56qin4c1kp4jimftqhvte5j@4ax.com...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:23:06 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
"Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dirmk1hhr4biptivmg8bmoal8ig4vpv9gs@4ax.com...
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
My question is one, abstract, economics-theory, question. The answer
is "yes" or "no."
Hi,
I say the answer is clearly "NO". That is, if you look at history and
ignore the "completely free economy" phrase (since no one agrees what that
means).
[/quote:e5d627fbef]
I.E. if you ignore the question the answer is....
This is sci.econ. Scientific economics is based on postulates which
may or may not be true on planet Earth. It is asserted that such
exercises may be instructive. This one has not proven so because
its acceptance leads to an unacceptable conclusion -- that the
economy must have measures to resist the trend to increasing
inequality.
[quote:e5d627fbef]
A "trend" would mean that the condition is approached with the passing of
time.
[/quote:e5d627fbef]
A "trend" need not approach any "condition."
It is "asymptotic" not "trend" to approach a specific state.
A *trend* to inequality need have no identifiable end point.
When my path trends to the library I sometimes end
up in a bar. But the *trend* was there.
Mason C |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:43 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 00:44:00 +0100, "Xeraan" <test@test.de> wrote:
[quote:ddd900cc63]We are talking about theoretically models. Not in practical terms.
The crucial question is wether he has to do a trade or not.
No, the question is, does he have to trade property (and I would say,
economically meaningful property, not just permission to consume
property).
Is the right to use a registered research (a patent) property?
[/quote:ddd900cc63]
I would say no. It is a contractual right.
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2r72n1tg3jjt3fkkovege88huo12ku83ln@4ax.com...
[quote:c82fd9f935]On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:00:16 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:duljm1d7fit56qin4c1kp4jimftqhvte5j@4ax.com...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:23:06 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
"Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dirmk1hhr4biptivmg8bmoal8ig4vpv9gs@4ax.com...
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
My question is one, abstract, economics-theory, question. The answer
is "yes" or "no."
Hi,
I say the answer is clearly "NO". That is, if you look at history and
ignore the "completely free economy" phrase (since no one agrees what
that
means).
I.E. if you ignore the question the answer is....
This is sci.econ. Scientific economics is based on postulates which
may or may not be true on planet Earth. It is asserted that such
exercises may be instructive. This one has not proven so because
its acceptance leads to an unacceptable conclusion -- that the
economy must have measures to resist the trend to increasing
inequality.
A "trend" would mean that the condition is approached with the passing of
time.
A "trend" need not approach any "condition."
It is "asymptotic" not "trend" to approach a specific state.
A *trend* to inequality need have no identifiable end point.
When my path trends to the library I sometimes end
up in a bar. But the *trend* was there.
Mason C
[/quote:c82fd9f935] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2r72n1tg3jjt3fkkovege88huo12ku83ln@4ax.com...
[quote:4a27314cb3]My question is one, abstract, economics-theory, question. The answer
is "yes" or "no."
Hi,
I say the answer is clearly "NO". That is, if you look at history and
ignore the "completely free economy" phrase (since no one agrees what
that
means).
I.E. if you ignore the question the answer is....
[/quote:4a27314cb3]
Hi,
Sorry, I double clicked too often and replied with no comment  .
So I'll try again.
Since you didn't define "completely free economy", and no one else offered
a definition, and since no one expressed approval of my suggestion of the
End of History and/or Globalization, and since the Inkas were cited as an
example of a very unequal society (Inka owns everything and there is no
money), I answered the part of your question that does make sense: Is there
a historic trend towards greater relative inequality?
[quote:4a27314cb3]This is sci.econ. Scientific economics is based on postulates which
may or may not be true on planet Earth.
[/quote:4a27314cb3]
But the answer is based in empirical evidence, not on any "economic theory"
with postulates.
[quote:4a27314cb3].....It is asserted that such
exercises may be instructive. This one has not proven so because
its acceptance leads to an unacceptable conclusion -- that the
economy must have measures to resist the trend to increasing
inequality.
[/quote:4a27314cb3]
But I say there is NO "trend to increasing inequality". At least not
"relative inequality". Absolute inequality does increase because the total
wealth of the earth is increasing very rapidly while the very poorest people
(mostly in Africa) see little improvement.
[quote:4a27314cb3]
A "trend" would mean that the condition is approached with the passing of
time.
A "trend" need not approach any "condition."
It is "asymptotic" not "trend" to approach a specific state..
A *trend* to inequality need have no identifiable end point.
[/quote:4a27314cb3]
The Gini Index has an upper limit of 1.0 corresponding to the top one
having it all. And that was the case (or close to it) in many socities for
thousands of years.
But (I claim) the worldwide Gini Index has been falling for the last 30
years, largely because of Globalization--which is a step towards your
"completely free economy".
[quote:4a27314cb3]
When my path trends to the library I sometimes end
up in a bar. But the *trend* was there.
Mason C
[/quote:4a27314cb3]
I say moving from library to bar and back and vice versa is not a "trend"
but a "habit". Or in today's termonology, a "lifestyle".
,,,,,,,
_______________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 |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lh82n15iq1hqao53sbjf2hh33m79k14pq8@4ax.com...
[quote:f9cde6bd40]On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:58:02 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
.. See the
research on wealth distribution that has found inverse exponential
distributions with different exponents in different societies (more
capitalist ones generally being associated with a lower exponent and
hence greater inequality).
-- Roy L
[/quote:f9cde6bd40]
Hi,
For example:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/ineq3.txt
[quote:f9cde6bd40]
And it is often argued that the fitting of a mathematical function shows
that the inequality is *natural* unavoidable and morally correct.
I can't bring to mind a viler, less logical, more repugnant idea.
Mason C
[/quote:f9cde6bd40]
Mason, fitting observed data to a curve is not vile, repugnant or "less
logical". It is just a way of finding an empirical relationship if one
exists.
A fit or correlation says nothing about morality or predestination. It
does show something about reality, which I suppose is related to what is
"natural" in that nature IS *real*.
Even if you find reality to be offensive or immoral.
,,,,,,,
_______________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 |
|
|
|
| tonyp |
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote
[quote:40b49826d2]But I say there is NO "trend to increasing inequality". At least not
"relative inequality". Absolute inequality does increase because the
total
wealth of the earth is increasing very rapidly while the very poorest
people
(mostly in Africa) see little improvement.
[/quote:40b49826d2]
Help me understand this, Jim. Let's say we can value wealth in dollars, and
let's say we compare the world at two different times:
Time 1) 90 people each own $10, 10 people each own $100
Time 2) 90 people each own $20, 10 people each own $300
At time 1, this world owns $1900 of wealth. At time 2, it owns $4800. How
do you define your terms? In this stripped-down-to-essentials example, the
poor doubled their wealth, the rich tripled theirs. Which flavor of
"inequality", if any, increased in your terminology?
-- TP |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason C |
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:00:01 -0600, "Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote:
[quote:b750545147]
"Mason C" <masonc2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lh82n15iq1hqao53sbjf2hh33m79k14pq8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:58:02 GMT, royls@telus.net wrote:
. See the
research on wealth distribution that has found inverse exponential
distributions with different exponents in different societies (more
capitalist ones generally being associated with a lower exponent and
hence greater inequality).
-- Roy L
Hi,
For example:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/ineq3.txt
And it is often argued that the fitting of a mathematical function shows
that the inequality is *natural* unavoidable and morally correct.
I can't bring to mind a viler, less logical, more repugnant idea.
Mason C
Mason, fitting observed data to a curve is not vile, repugnant or "less
logical".
[/quote:b750545147]
You did not read the sentence on which you commented.
[quote:b750545147]It is just a way of finding an empirical relationship if one
exists.
A fit or correlation says nothing about morality or predestination. It
does show something about reality, which I suppose is related to what is
"natural" in that nature IS *real*.
Even if you find reality to be offensive or immoral.
Indeed. It often is. Was. Will be. But the recognition of[/quote:b750545147]
what is offensive or immoral is increasing -- globally.
There is a *trend* toward increasing condemnation of
genocide, ethnic cleansing (e.g. Am.Indians), cutting off
hands of thieves, beating wives, burning heretics at the
stake, hanging witches, etc etc.
Making a science of the statistics of immorality to show
it is reality does not make immorality moral.
Mason C |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"tonyp" <tonyp@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:Su6dnTgemNZpde_eRVn-qw@rcn.net...
[quote:fade812703]
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote
But I say there is NO "trend to increasing inequality". At least not
"relative inequality". Absolute inequality does increase because the
total
wealth of the earth is increasing very rapidly while the very poorest
people
(mostly in Africa) see little improvement.
Help me understand this, Jim. Let's say we can value wealth in dollars,
and
let's say we compare the world at two different times:
Time 1) 90 people each own $10, 10 people each own $100
Time 2) 90 people each own $20, 10 people each own $300
At time 1, this world owns $1900 of wealth. At time 2, it owns $4800.
How
do you define your terms? In this stripped-down-to-essentials example,
the
poor doubled their wealth, the rich tripled theirs. Which flavor of
"inequality", if any, increased in your terminology?
-- TP
[/quote:fade812703]
Hi,
In your example (and assuming time 2 is later than time 1) I would say that
inequality has increased in both relative and absolute terms--again assuming
that a dollar at time 2 can purchase as much or more than a time 1 dollar.
All are richer, but the group is less equal.
In the real world, most have been getting richer, but the "more equal" is
less obvious. It is based on the gains made by those in India, China, South
Korea, and such places. Africans haven't gained much, and many in Russia
have lost. Some in Russia have gained a lot. I am guessing that the
worldwide Gini Index has dropped during the last 30 years, but have seen no
hard data on that, but see:
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TotW/world_income_dist.html
,,,,,,,
_______________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 |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:35 am
|
|