Question re: inequality

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Question re: inequality

Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Question re: inequality

Author

Message

Mason A. Clark

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:51 am

Guest

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

Kudlow Fan

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:29 am

Guest

"Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dirmk1hhr4biptivmg8bmoal8ig4vpv9gs@4ax.com...
[quote:a241749d5c]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?
[/quote:a241749d5c]
IT DOESN'T MATTER! It is everyone's duty to compete! Competition and
innovation are the keys to success. If you are poor it means you did not
manage your budget and skill set correctly. It is not the governments
responsibility to manage this for you.

Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:55 am

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:51:32 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[quote:0ae5404ff8]Question: Is there or is there not a tendency, in a completely
free economy, for inequality to continually increase?
[/quote:0ae5404ff8]
What is "inequality," and what is a "completely free" economy?

[quote:0ae5404ff8]That is, for the rich to become richer and more numerous and
the poorer to become poorer and more numerous?
[/quote:0ae5404ff8]
?? Don't you mean the rich become richer but _less_ numerous?

[quote:0ae5404ff8]Given no organized, governmental or societal, actions to
impede the trend?
[/quote:0ae5404ff8]
What would give rise to such a trend in a "completely free" economy?

-- Roy L

Dan in Philly

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:28 pm

Guest

"Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message ...
[quote:f9c060ee26]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?
[/quote:f9c060ee26]
I've read that inequality increased in the late 1800s. The robber barons
hired lots of people to produce capital goods (steel, railroads) but those
people couldn't buy much with their money. Then, in the early 1900s, the era
of consumer goods began (eg those railroads were now delivering beef from
Chicago to the east coast), so the standard of living of working people
improved.
Some have suggested that recent years have seen inequality increase, due to
the higher wages earned by advanced eduation (which generally can only be
bought if your parents had advanced education, etc).

The only bright side to this: you can't take it with you. I suspect that
rich people give away most of their wealth before they die (charities,
endowments).
Whether giving a billion $ to NPR is a benefit to the lower-classes is of
course debatable.

Dan in Philly

rvfulltime (was xenman)

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:44 am

Guest

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:51:32 GMT, Mason A. Clark <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[quote:d42c969530]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:d42c969530]

Not necessarily. Wealth tends to flow to people that are able
to master new technologies first. Throughout history those
that mastered new technologies; agriculture, metalurgy, steam
power, steel, oil, transportation (railroads), electronics, internet,
etc. have acquired great wealth but not at the expense of
other people. They created wealth rather than expropriated it.

The U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world, but at one time
we were as poor as every one else. We mastered a number
of items including oil, steel, transportation, electronics and
computers, industrial management, and capital formation. When
that is combined with our relatively free markets, rule of law,
and property rights, we have even gotten wealthier. That some
of the world is getting poorer is not because we have gotten
wealthier, it is due to their own society and culture. Look at what
Japan was able to accomplish in 150 years. Look at Hong Kong
in the last 60 years. Look at South Korea in the last 50 years.

Ron Peterson

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:19 pm

Guest

rvfulltime (was xenman) wrote:

[quote:7b2700a8c2]Not necessarily. Wealth tends to flow to people that are able
to master new technologies first. ...
[/quote:7b2700a8c2]
I think that's the essence of progress. Technologies such as
domestication of livestock, farming, etc. have all resulted in greater
economic efficiencies causing those cultures that have adopted those
technologies to have advantages over the other cultures. Since
technology can lower the cost of the means of production, the share of
wealth for the working people may actually increase.

So the question might be is whether an anarchist laissez faire economic
system would increase the development of technology over other types of
economic systems.

--
Ron

MLaFarge

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:29 pm

Guest

On 13 Oct 2005 13:19:13 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote:

[quote:d92039767c]
rvfulltime (was xenman) wrote:

Not necessarily. Wealth tends to flow to people that are able
to master new technologies first. ...

I think that's the essence of progress. Technologies such as
domestication of livestock, farming, etc. have all resulted in greater
economic efficiencies causing those cultures that have adopted those
technologies to have advantages over the other cultures. Since
technology can lower the cost of the means of production, the share of
wealth for the working people may actually increase.

So the question might be is whether an anarchist laissez faire economic
system would increase the development of technology over other types of
economic systems.
[/quote:d92039767c]
NO ! This is *my* thread and that was NOT the question.

The question is: does an anarchic economic system trend to increasing
inequality?

Now: does it or does it not?

Mason

Ron Peterson

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:22 am

Guest

MLaFarge wrote:
[quote:43fc2c7093]On 13 Oct 2005 13:19:13 -0700, "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote:

So the question might be is whether an anarchist laissez faire economic
system would increase the development of technology over other types of
economic systems.

NO ! This is *my* thread and that was NOT the question.

The question is: does an anarchic economic system trend to increasing
inequality?

Now: does it or does it not?
[/quote:43fc2c7093]
No. Competition will keep growth in inequality in check.

--
Ron

Quirk

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:20 am

Guest

Mason A. Clark wrote:

[quote:38310b4d4c]Given no organized, governmental or societal, actions to
impede the trend?
[/quote:38310b4d4c]
What is to stop "organized, governmental or societal" agents from
developing?

The answer to your question depends on _how_ these develop.

If they develop on the basis of mutual aid, co-operation and liberty,
or if they develop on the basis of force, subjugation and exploitation.

Anarchism requires not only the absence of the State, but the
_presence_ of mutual defence communities that are commited to
preserving liberty.

Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:23 pm

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:44:14 -0700, "rvfulltime (was xenman)"
<rvfulltime@_removeme_isp.com> wrote:

[quote:883088ee90]Wealth tends to flow to people that are able
to master new technologies first.
[/quote:883088ee90]
Nonsense. It flows to people that are able to make others pay for
access to new technologies. Mastering new technology gets you a
minimum wage job at a tech support call center. Controlling others'
access to new technology gets you ownership of their livelihoods,
their incomes.

[quote:883088ee90]Throughout history those
that mastered new technologies; agriculture, metalurgy, steam
power, steel, oil, transportation (railroads), electronics, internet,
etc. have acquired great wealth but not at the expense of
other people. They created wealth rather than expropriated it.
[/quote:883088ee90]
Garbage. The people who created and mastered those technologies did
it, by and large, for little better than stoop labor wages. The
people who got rich from those technologies were the ones that were
able to find a way of denying others access to them, unless they paid
up. Edison's staff did almost all the work creating and mastering the
new technologies that came out of Menlo Park; he owned the patents.
They worked for little better than ordinary wages; he got very rich.

[quote:883088ee90]Look at what
Japan was able to accomplish in 150 years.
[/quote:883088ee90]
A little over 100, actually. And note: they did it by recovering land
rent for public purposes rather than taxing production.

[quote:883088ee90]Look at Hong Kong in the last 60 years.
[/quote:883088ee90]
The 50 years ending in 1997 are probably more illuminating. And
again, HK got most of its government revenue in those years by leasing
out public land, not by taxing production.

[quote:883088ee90]Look at South Korea in the last 50 years.
[/quote:883088ee90]
SK benefited greatly from both MacArthur-style land reforms
implemented after WW II and a significant land value tax since then.
Taiwan very much likewise. Singapore got rich in just 30 years the
same way as HK, by leasing out public land instead of taxing
production.

-- Roy L

John E. Cairnes

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:26 am

Guest

Your question cannot be answered as stated. There is no such thing as
"a completely free economy" in the abstract.

Every economy exists within a particular legal, social, and
institutional framework. That framework might or might not lead to
increasing inequality.

In the United States, for example -- though no one would consider its
economy "free" -- the legal framework taxes wealth at a lower rate
than work and allows corporations to walk away from their financial
obligations (e.g., pension defaults), while "privatization" turns over
public properties to the politically-connected rich (similar to the
18th-century enclosure movement in England).

Thus, the US legal framework tends to increase inequality by enriching
those at the very top of the income distribution and impoverishing
everyone else. However, given the same degree of economic freedom, a
different legal framework might lead to a different outcome.

John Cairnes

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:51:32 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> dazzled us with his intellect thusly:

[quote:d4a1385c70]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:d4a1385c70]

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:35 pm

Guest

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:26:21 -0400, John E. Cairnes
<JECairnes@nospam.nowhere.org> wrote:

[quote:62189232d3]Your question cannot be answered as stated. There is no such thing as
"a completely free economy" in the abstract.
[/quote:62189232d3]
In the absence of friction will a heavy object fall faster than
a light object? There is no such thing as an "absence of
friction" therefore the question cannot be answered as stated.

zzbunker

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:10 pm

Guest

Mason A. Clark wrote:
[quote:3cd9867675]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?
[/quote:3cd9867675]
No. There is a trend concering diverence of income.
So the people in any working field will have
incomes that diverge from the mean income.

But the US is not a free economy.
People who make handguns make more
than people who make jets.

[quote:3cd9867675]
Given no organized, governmental or societal, actions to
impede the trend?
[/quote:3cd9867675]
Nobody has yet shown that economics makes any
sense in the absence of physics or engineering,
so it couldn't have a trend without some
actions to break the mean.

[quote:3cd9867675]
Mason C[/quote:3cd9867675]

Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:44 am

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:36:35 GMT, Mason C <masonc2@earthlink.net>
wrote:

[quote:f14ed3b61e]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?

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.
[/quote:f14ed3b61e]
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:f14ed3b61e]I had in mind a formal sequence of logic. I despair of getting
it off first base. Perhaps the subject is too loaded.
[/quote:f14ed3b61e]
Formal logic begins with definitions and premises. Where are they?

-- Roy L

Kevin Stickel

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:11 am

Guest

[quote:6681208a25]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.
[/quote:6681208a25]

I agree with you in most aspects, beside this one:

[quote:6681208a25]If people were
not mortal, it might be possible for certain institutional
arrangements to produce indefinitely increasing inequality, until one
person owned everything.
[/quote:6681208a25]
In a "perfect market" (terminus technicus) there can't be a person who owns
_every_thing.
There will be some small share owned by the working people for all times.
(Their labour force or something they traded it for)

Regards
Kevin

Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:40 pm Science Forum Index