birdog1960 Posted June 17, 2013 Author Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) If I invest my total net worth in a stock that is worth $5 per share and grows to $10 per share I have doubled my wealth. Who is now poorer because of this? right now about 80% of securities are owned by a few percent of the population. so we know who is likely richer. whether others are poorer goes back to the same argument and questions of scale. has the stock doubled as a result of exploitation of human resources? exploitation of natural resources? increasing prices for no reasons other than profit motives? in those cases there are losers. Edited June 17, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 right now about 80% of securities are owned by a few percent of the population. so we know who is likely richer. whether others are poorer goes back to the same argument and questions of scale. So seeing I have doubled my wealth and others who have not increased their wealth they are now poorer........compared to me. However they are neigher richer nor poorer than they were yesterday. So if the richer get richer and the poor stay the same in your mind they are now poorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 right now about 80% of securities are owned by a few percent of the population. so we know who is likely richer. whether others are poorer goes back to the same argument and questions of scale. Why? Under a capitalist system their lifespan is greater than ever before, their quality of healthcare is greater than ever before, their quality of life is greater than ever before, and the cost of goods decreases because supply increases... How does this make them worse off? Who the !@#$ cares how much more Bill Gates has than me, as long as my standard of living is increasing. Look at the data in the blog post I provided. How are the poor worse off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 but yes, the laws of thermodynamics do apply in an absolute sense. No, they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Wow, now we're on to thermodynamics. No topic is safe from the ignorance of PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Wow, now we're on to thermodynamics. No topic is safe from the ignorance of PPP. Thermodynamics as it applies to wealth distribution, in an absolute sense, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) How to understanding Birdog's logic: -ie: Four people who work the same job and are paid the same wages. week 1 Person 1 invests $100 in stock and it's now worth $200 Person 2 buys a new phone for $100 Person 3 throws a party and buys a keg of beer for $100 Person 4 invests $100 in stock and loses it all week 2 Person 1 buys himself a phone and a keg for $200 Person 2 wants to buy a keg but there are none left this week Person 3 wants to buy a phone but there are none left this week Person 4 blames person 1 , then decides to occupy his lawn. Now extend this model over several generations. Despite having the same job and getting paid the same salary, person 1 will eventually dwarf the wealth of person 2,3 & 4 to the point where he will be able to deny them access to any and all resources if he so chooses. So even if they started out the same, at the end, person 1 can offer to pay $101 for the phone and keg thus pushing the same product out of reach of person 2,3 & 4; theoretically making them poorer since their salary will no longer be able to buy the same products as before. The eventual goal of Birddog is to take Person 1's invested $100 profit and give it person 4, then take person 2's phone and give everyone access to it; thus restoring the balance of wealth. (or simply prohibit the acquisition of wealth like in Star Trek) Edited June 17, 2013 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 right now about 80% of securities are owned by a few percent of the population. so we know who is likely richer. whether others are poorer goes back to the same argument and questions of scale. has the stock doubled as a result of exploitation of human resources? exploitation of natural resources? increasing prices for no reasons other than profit motives? in those cases there are losers. As as usual this nutty mindset ignores the fact that people are paid an agreed upon wage to perform their jobs and have the ability to choose whether or not to purchase a good or service at a given price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) and how difficult is it to realize that all resources are finite. if they're divided 60/40 with the 60 going to the 1%, the 99 are going to do worse than oif it were divided 40/60. why is that so hard to see? assume some increase in available resources over time and it remains as stated. Lets say that this global system you've described which is responsible for current wealth distribution patterns actually exists for the purposes of discussion, despite the glaringly obvious fact that global wealth distribution is the product of hundreds of geographies, political systems, and economies. Then lets suppose that this system dictates that wealth be distributed 60/40 with 60% going to 1% of the population and 40% going to 99% of the population. Finally, lets assume there's a system which can be implemented that ensures that wealth will be allocated such that 25% goes to the top 1% and 75% goes to the remaining 99% of the population, a much more even distribution. What happens to total global wealth and why? Edited June 17, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Lets say that this global system which is responsible for current wealth distribution patterns actually exists for the purposes of discuss, despite the glaringly obvious fact that global wealth distribution is the product of hundreds of geographies, political systems, and economies. Then lets suppose that this system dictates that wealth be distributed 60/40 with 60% going to 1% of the population and 40% going to 99% of the population. Finally, lets assume there's a system which can be implemented that ensures that wealth will be allocated such that 25% goes to the top 1% and 75% goes to the remaining 99% of the population, a much more even distribution. What happens to total global wealth and why? Oh, this ought to be good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 17, 2013 Author Share Posted June 17, 2013 Lets say that this global system you've described which is responsible for current wealth distribution patterns actually exists for the purposes of discussion, despite the glaringly obvious fact that global wealth distribution is the product of hundreds of geographies, political systems, and economies. Then lets suppose that this system dictates that wealth be distributed 60/40 with 60% going to 1% of the population and 40% going to 99% of the population. Finally, lets assume there's a system which can be implemented that ensures that wealth will be allocated such that 25% goes to the top 1% and 75% goes to the remaining 99% of the population, a much more even distribution. What happens to total global wealth and why? an experiment that's never been tried. but i suspect global wealth would decrease, mostly due to a large loss of wealth at the top and then in reinvestment. the absolute wealth shared between the 99% would likely increase substantially. meaning .75 of x would be greater than .4 of y. x may well be less than y but not by an amount proportional to the change in distribution. this is all pure conjecture. you don't know and i don't know. Thermodynamics as it applies to wealth distribution, in an absolute sense, no less. the blogger noted that the laws of thermodynamics apply to the physical world but contends they don't apply to economics. are not all physical resources part of both the physical world and economics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) Do you believe that wealth tends to consolidate upwards because those who's hands it consolidates to invest it better or worse than those to whom wealth does not consolidate? Do you believe that forcing a larger percentage of a perpetually decreasing gross amount of wealth to the pooris good or bad for the poor? Oh, and your experiment absolutely has been tried. Edited June 17, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 an experiment that's never been tried. but i suspect global wealth would decrease, mostly due to a large loss of wealth at the top and then in reinvestment. the absolute wealth shared between the 99% would likely increase substantially. meaning .75 of x would be greater than .4 of y. x may well be less than y but not by an amount proportional to the change in distribution. this is all pure conjecture. you don't know and i don't know. Ever heard of Communism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 How to understanding Birdog's logic: -ie: Four people who work the same job and are paid the same wages. week 1 Person 1 invests $100 in stock and it's now worth $200 Person 2 buys a new phone for $100 Person 3 throws a party and buys a keg of beer for $100 Person 4 invests $100 in stock and loses it all week 2 Person 1 buys himself a phone and a keg for $200 Person 2 wants to buy a keg but there are none left this week Person 3 wants to buy a phone but there are none left this week Person 4 blames person 1 , then decides to occupy his lawn. Now extend this model over several generations. Despite having the same job and getting paid the same salary, person 1 will eventually dwarf the wealth of person 2,3 & 4 to the point where he will be able to deny them access to any and all resources if he so chooses. So even if they started out the same, at the end, person 1 can offer to pay $101 for the phone and keg thus pushing the same product out of reach of person 2,3 & 4; theoretically making them poorer since their salary will no longer be able to buy the same products as before. The eventual goal of Birddog is to take Person 1's invested $100 profit and give it person 4, then take person 2's phone and give everyone access to it; thus restoring the balance of wealth. (or simply prohibit the acquisition of wealth like in Star Trek) legitimate lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 17, 2013 Author Share Posted June 17, 2013 Ever heard of Communism? no. the essence of the question to me is: at what level of income and wealth disparity are the most talented people still motivated to give their best effort? i believe we are currently way past that number. for example: doctors and lawyers make roughly 3-4x national medians for income (while after a long career their accumulated wealth would likely be a higher multiple) yet there's no shortage of applicants to law or med school. and both require significant sacrifice and effort. not on expert on demming, but i've heard it said that he proposes no more than an income differential greater than a multiple of somewhere around 30 for higest to lowest paid for an efficient corporation. i believe the incentives are obscenely, artificially and unnecessarily high. to lower them to a more efficient level doesn't constitute communism or even socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 no. the essence of the question to me is: at what level of income and wealth disparity are the most talented people still motivated to give their best effort? i believe we are currently way past that number. for example: doctors and lawyers make roughly 3-4x national medians for income (while after a long career their accumulated wealth would likely be a higher multiple) yet there's no shortage of applicants to law or med school. and both require significant sacrifice and effort. not on expert on demming, but i've heard it said that he proposes no more than an income differential greater than a multiple of somewhere around 30 for higest to lowest paid for an efficient corporation. i believe the incentives are obscenely, artificially and unnecessarily high. to lower them to a more efficient level doesn't constitute communism or even socialism. There is no way to do this and it wouldn't do anything to wealth gaps anyway ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 17, 2013 Author Share Posted June 17, 2013 There is no way to do this and it wouldn't do anything to wealth gaps anyway ... really? in the us, how bout changing capital gains taxes? stopping large campaign contributions that influence political decisions for the benefit of the wealthy? on a global level, admittedly it would require an unlikely major paradigm shift. but why wouldn't those actions in the us have an effect on income disparity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 no. the essence of the question to me is: at what level of income and wealth disparity are the most talented people still motivated to give their best effort? i believe we are currently way past that number. for example: doctors and lawyers make roughly 3-4x national medians for income (while after a long career their accumulated wealth would likely be a higher multiple) yet there's no shortage of applicants to law or med school. and both require significant sacrifice and effort. not on expert on demming, but i've heard it said that he proposes no more than an income differential greater than a multiple of somewhere around 30 for higest to lowest paid for an efficient corporation. i believe the incentives are obscenely, artificially and unnecessarily high. to lower them to a more efficient level doesn't constitute communism or even socialism. I share some of your sentiments here, but I'm afraid the devil is details. Personally, I'd be just fine with menial workers making more and top earners earning less, provided the menial workers were putting in the work and the top earners are still reasonably free to reap what they sew. Logistically however, I just can't conceive of any way in which that is possible to implement. Every way I can conceive of will, I believe based on history and intermediate studies of economics, lead to a lower standard of living for all involved. If you have a theory on how this could realistically work I'd honestly like to hear it. As far as incentives go, part of the problem is not with incentivizing someone to want to undertake the initial burden that will reward them with riches, but often to continue providing a service to all. For instance, the d-bags that started Google or the guy that started Amazon would have likely undertaken the task even if the potential reward was significantly less than what they've reaped. But once they've maxed out on their reward, what is their reason to continue to expand and improve their service? What is the reason for any company to continue to build, produce, or service more once it maxes out or when the marginal return becomes slight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I share some of your sentiments here, but I'm afraid the devil is details. Personally, I'd be just fine with menial workers making more and top earners earning less, provided the menial workers were putting in the work and the top earners are still reasonably free to reap what they sew. Logistically however, I just can't conceive of any way in which that is possible to implement. Every way I can conceive of will, I believe based on history and intermediate studies of economics, lead to a lower standard of living for all involved. If you have a theory on how this could realistically work I'd honestly like to hear it. As far as incentives go, part of the problem is not with incentivizing someone to want to undertake the initial burden that will reward them with riches, but often to continue providing a service to all. For instance, the d-bags that started Google or the guy that started Amazon would have likely undertaken the task even if the potential reward was significantly less than what they've reaped. But once they've maxed out on their reward, what is their reason to continue to expand and improve their service? What is the reason for any company to continue to build, produce, or service more once it maxes out or when the marginal return becomes slight? The fifth time I've seen that today: you reap what you SOW. Not "sew". You rip what you sew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I judge by this discussion that everyone agrees with our governments calculating of inflation- is that true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts