The Money Markets. - Page 7
Old 09-05-2011, 07:45 PM   #121 (permalink)
216 :}

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 574
Representing:
Default

Google Pareto Law or Pareto Distribution. The popular ratio is 80/20 and can be as high as 95/5. This occurs in nature and it makes sense that it will occur in "free societies" which can be described here as free market capitalism and a democracy government. This is a natural progression. It may sound brutish but for humanity to advance the strong must get stronger and the weak must either adept or seize to exist. Reward the winners and stop over-subsidizing the losers. It's an unpopular opinion but it's the best solution for mankind.

Equality in terms of income is a utopian idea. Everyone is talented in their own way and sometimes those talents are more relevant/financially rewarding in certain times of history. Sure there are anomalies such as inept CEOs earning $40,000,000, overpaid athletes, people of various overrated industries (finance) and so forth but for the most part it balances out. Others are super wealthy because they are owners of a company that creates value for the economy, they deserve to be well compensated in that event.

Let's someone with a net worth of a billion USDs makes 100 million this year. Should that billionare give $45,000,000 to the government in order for the state to redistribute the wealth? I would argue no... the state should take perhaps $15,000,000. The billionaire wouldn't just horde the money like a greedy pig portrayed in papers... he would try to allocate the capital elsewhere and he would likely do a better job then the government considering his/his families talents made him the billion in the first place. I'm essentially saying that the billionare would redistribute his wealth better then the government would. The gov't would fund stupid political projects, expense administrative costs, go to fight stupid wars, buy unnecessary "defense" weapons, etc.

The good news is that the economy is a positive sum game. In capitalist systems of course the rich will get richer... that's fine as long as society as a whole progresses. Compare the standard of living of a poor person in 1905 or 2005. There's obviously less income equality today but the standard of living for today's poor, middle class, rich, uber wealthy is higher than it was in the past. A poor person today has arguably a higher quality of life than the monarch of France in the 16th century.
6cubed is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2011, 07:47 PM   #122 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,558
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
Yeah, LX, I saw that a few weeks ago.

My question is, why isn't anyone actually angry about this? It's a question I've been pondering for about a week right now and I don't see any anger. I see no one willing to stand up and yell, "enough!"

lots of people are angry about this. when they stand up and say 'enough' they get branded radicals and extremists. sometimes they are extreme, and sometimes they aren't. but lumping them together blends the 'are' and 'aren't' so that neither one can be considered properly.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2011, 07:58 PM   #123 (permalink)
LX
with pink peppercorns

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,627
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
Yeah, LX, I saw that a few weeks ago.

My question is, why isn't anyone actually angry about this? It's a question I've been pondering for about a week right now and I don't see any anger. I see no one willing to stand up and yell, "enough!"
What shocks me is that the opposite tends to happen. There is real anger when it gets suggested that upper income brackets could see higher tax rates, and the anger usually comes from those that would not see increases, as well as from those that would be effected.

The rich fucked everyone over big time and the second it looked like regulations would come into effect to prevent the same criminal behavior from occurring again, the criminals harnessed anger and made themselves out to be victims.

If only the economy were in fact a positive sum game as 666 suggests. It's obviously a zero sum gain, unless you believe in magic. Have societies advanced over those of 400 years previous? Well yeah in many terms. But the amount of resources used, and often wasted, to make those gains, and the enormous inequality now in play, make the future look far from positive, and not all that sustainable. The more we look to magical ideas the worse the outlook gets.
LX is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2011, 10:32 PM   #124 (permalink)
216 :}

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 574
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LX View Post
If only the economy were in fact a positive sum game as 666 suggests. It's obviously a zero sum gain, unless you believe in magic. Have societies advanced over those of 400 years previous? Well yeah in many terms. But the amount of resources used, and often wasted, to make those gains, and the enormous inequality now in play, make the future look far from positive, and not all that sustainable. The more we look to magical ideas the worse the outlook gets.
The economy is a positive sum game. If you believe it is zero-sum then your view is mercantalist and out of date by a few centuries lol. We can only guess about the use of resources and can only predict that in the future we will build a self-sustaining planet. Just remember that standards of living have risen drastically in the past century because of free markets, not gov't... free markets = innovation... sure there is the place for government to oversee laws, institutions, provide short-term safety nets for worthy citizens and to promote fairness in trade. The whole world has prospered because of international trade and specialization.

A lot of people are rich because they know how to allocate capital. The US gov't for example obviously doesn't know how to allocate anything considering it is over $12,000,000,000 in debt.

It is wrong to blame rich people, blame gov't. Rich people will create more value and jobs then the gov't will. The gov't will redistribute the wealth, partly to worthy individuals, partly to slackers of society and the rest to inefficient bureaucratic processes and political pork. How many value added jobs has a rich person created as opposed to the government?
6cubed is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2011, 06:56 AM   #125 (permalink)
LX
with pink peppercorns

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,627
Representing:
Default

Yeah - less government has been such a boon to us. I'm not against rich people, or the idea of inequality. I am against obscene riches gained illegitimately, and gross inequalities. Surely you can recognize the existence of such as easily as you can point to the inefficiencies of government 666.

As for the idea something can come from nothing, it resembles the religiosity of the fathers of capitalism, who pointed out the "inexhaustible" resources that God had given them. They also equated the poor with moral failings that required suffering as deemed by God. That included child labor in sweatshops, who were able to find their way to heaven as a result of their servitude. Of course all of that is baloney. And now we are getting back to slavish labor practices through the pressures of globalization, while the oceans are dying, and carbon that accumulated over hundreds of millions of years has been burned up in a relative blink of an eye.

Debt is nothing new. The way we approach debt is extremely harmful. I remember hearing of laws among the Hebrew tribes or something, that required all debt to be erased every seven generations. There comes a point where keeping track of debt only leads to the kinds of gross inequality that can no longer be legitimized, and of course, over a certain amount of time, the profits coming from the interest, as well as the other inherent positional advantages, surpass the original cost many times over and would survive the wiping out of the original debt. No, these are not Biblical times, and everything is much more complicated, but if we can't at least approach that sort of wisdom, and recognize the ultimate zero sum nature of the material world, and instead keep cooking the books and hoping for a future utopia where God does indeed provide inexhaustible wealth for the taking, then we are basically fucked. Some kind of a return to a peasant-like worldview might be called for, allowing for a highly skeptical approach to government and a simultaneous respect for the exhaustibility of the stuff of life. If only the peasant class hadn't been kicked to the curb the world over in favor of the corruptibility of power through both government and capital. Ah well, it's been a good few hundred years, and maybe those that suffer in our wake will be able to convince themselves that they are paying off some inherent sinfulness and moral indebtedness.
LX is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24