Why Income Inequality Matters(economist.com)
economist.com
Why Income Inequality Matters
http://www.economist.com/node/17929075
5 comments
It is amazingly arrogant to say that someone could be convinced to "buy crap that they didn't need or that was even harmful to them."
What possibly makes you think you have a better idea of what goods and services I need than you do? By what right do you claim to be better equipped to weight utility, risk, short/long term benefits to a consumer, than they themselves are?
Sleeping your way to riches I view as legitimate. The person sleeping is, in some sense, simply trading their services for payment.
As for 'lied, bribed, cheated, stolen, or killed' - those are all already illegal and prosecuted. Would you disagree with my hypothesis that in, say the last 30 years, less than 10% of millionaires are minted through those means? (I'm not sure if that's true - but I strongly suspect it is. If you disagree, I may do the research ...)
What possibly makes you think you have a better idea of what goods and services I need than you do? By what right do you claim to be better equipped to weight utility, risk, short/long term benefits to a consumer, than they themselves are?
Sleeping your way to riches I view as legitimate. The person sleeping is, in some sense, simply trading their services for payment.
As for 'lied, bribed, cheated, stolen, or killed' - those are all already illegal and prosecuted. Would you disagree with my hypothesis that in, say the last 30 years, less than 10% of millionaires are minted through those means? (I'm not sure if that's true - but I strongly suspect it is. If you disagree, I may do the research ...)
"It is amazingly arrogant to say that someone could be convinced to 'buy crap that they didn't need or that was even harmful to them.'
What possibly makes you think you have a better idea of what goods and services I need than you do?"
You've never heard anyone complain about buying crap that they didn't need? You never seen someone's house chock full of crap that they never use (sometimes never even taken out of the box)? You don't know anyone with a shopping (or eating) addiction?
Or perhaps you're not aware that corporations spend billions on trying to figure out people's psychology so that products could be marketed more effectively (by, say, doing something so important to utility of the product as changing the color of the box its sold in or the font on the front of the box, or the music played in stores as people shop, not to mention slimy marketing techniques such as getting paid stooges to pretend to be consumers while singing praises of the product and company).
Of course, maybe the consumer really does need to be, say, poisoned by cigarettes, or have a burning need to enlarge their male member, and the valiant marketers are just providing a valuable service by making the consumer aware of this great, hitherto unknown need.
"As for 'lied, bribed, cheated, stolen, or killed' - those are all already illegal and prosecuted."
I'm not sure what your point is there. So these means are (sometimes) illegal. And (sometimes) prosecuted. Many people still continue to use them (just open any newspaper on any day of the year).
"Would you disagree with my hypothesis that in, say the last 30 years, less than 10% of millionaires are minted through those means?"
Unless they were caught (or you were personally involved), how would you know? That's not to say that some haven't been caught. But, like roaches, you can bet that the ones that you see are just a tiny minority compared to the ones you don't see.
What possibly makes you think you have a better idea of what goods and services I need than you do?"
You've never heard anyone complain about buying crap that they didn't need? You never seen someone's house chock full of crap that they never use (sometimes never even taken out of the box)? You don't know anyone with a shopping (or eating) addiction?
Or perhaps you're not aware that corporations spend billions on trying to figure out people's psychology so that products could be marketed more effectively (by, say, doing something so important to utility of the product as changing the color of the box its sold in or the font on the front of the box, or the music played in stores as people shop, not to mention slimy marketing techniques such as getting paid stooges to pretend to be consumers while singing praises of the product and company).
Of course, maybe the consumer really does need to be, say, poisoned by cigarettes, or have a burning need to enlarge their male member, and the valiant marketers are just providing a valuable service by making the consumer aware of this great, hitherto unknown need.
"As for 'lied, bribed, cheated, stolen, or killed' - those are all already illegal and prosecuted."
I'm not sure what your point is there. So these means are (sometimes) illegal. And (sometimes) prosecuted. Many people still continue to use them (just open any newspaper on any day of the year).
"Would you disagree with my hypothesis that in, say the last 30 years, less than 10% of millionaires are minted through those means?"
Unless they were caught (or you were personally involved), how would you know? That's not to say that some haven't been caught. But, like roaches, you can bet that the ones that you see are just a tiny minority compared to the ones you don't see.
All ways that are extraordinary, not necessarily moral.
Looking at human history, perhaps they are not so extraordinary after all.
Then add "successfully" to the criterion. Successfully screwing people over on an epic scale is actually fairly rare, if only because so many people try and there's only so much success you can have that way.
Does it really have to be on an epic scale? What if you kill just one person to get rich? Or what if you ruin the lives of just a dozen or two? Or perhaps you just cheat one person out of everything he owns?
That's certainly not epic. Might not even make the paper.
That's certainly not epic. Might not even make the paper.
My friend, this is a negative viewpoint. I see much, much more evidence that creating lasting value is the far more "tried and true" way of getting rich.
Your beliefs matter. If you believe that you have to screw over people, lie, etc. to make money, you're going to be broke.
(edit: softened the language a little)
Your beliefs matter. If you believe that you have to screw over people, lie, etc. to make money, you're going to be broke.
(edit: softened the language a little)
"My friend, this is a negative viewpoint. I see much, much more evidence that creating lasting value is the far more "tried and true" way of getting rich."
Some people believe that property is theft. Creating something of lasting value, while laudable, would not excuse that theft.
But even rejecting that principle, just because you may have created something of lasting value doesn't necessarily translate in to riches.
In fact, history is full of examples of people who created quite valuable things and yet died in abject poverty. They've often been cheated of their creation, and someone else took the credit (and the money).
Some even argue that that's how the capitalist system works overall. The people at the top are the ones who profit most from the rest. While it is the rest who are the ones doing the really valuable work (and make a pittance in comparison).
But even if we set that aside and assume that you've both made something of lasting value and have not had it stolen or cheated from you, or sold it to someone for a pittance of its actual worth, there's still the problem of converting it to wealth.
Some people are just plain horrible at doing this, and when they are good at it, what will getting rich from that product actually entail? Will getting the product to succeed in the marketplace always (or even mostly) involve doing nothing immoral or illegal?
Considering how many shady, anticompetitive, or just plain illegal business practices that are revealed in our newspapers every day, I have my doubts.
Some people believe that property is theft. Creating something of lasting value, while laudable, would not excuse that theft.
But even rejecting that principle, just because you may have created something of lasting value doesn't necessarily translate in to riches.
In fact, history is full of examples of people who created quite valuable things and yet died in abject poverty. They've often been cheated of their creation, and someone else took the credit (and the money).
Some even argue that that's how the capitalist system works overall. The people at the top are the ones who profit most from the rest. While it is the rest who are the ones doing the really valuable work (and make a pittance in comparison).
But even if we set that aside and assume that you've both made something of lasting value and have not had it stolen or cheated from you, or sold it to someone for a pittance of its actual worth, there's still the problem of converting it to wealth.
Some people are just plain horrible at doing this, and when they are good at it, what will getting rich from that product actually entail? Will getting the product to succeed in the marketplace always (or even mostly) involve doing nothing immoral or illegal?
Considering how many shady, anticompetitive, or just plain illegal business practices that are revealed in our newspapers every day, I have my doubts.
Read this:
http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
If you believe more wealth is coming from "lying bribing cheating stealing murderous" behavior, then I'm guessing you don't actually know many people succeeding at a high level financially. They tend to have the same human flaws most of us have about being expedient or nasty sometimes, but actually tend to be less that way than people not succeeding as much.
It's really hard to get far by screwing people. Everyone has conflicts, but people getting wealthy in a place like modern USA are doing it much more by building and serving, not lying/cheating/stealing/killing/etc.
http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
If you believe more wealth is coming from "lying bribing cheating stealing murderous" behavior, then I'm guessing you don't actually know many people succeeding at a high level financially. They tend to have the same human flaws most of us have about being expedient or nasty sometimes, but actually tend to be less that way than people not succeeding as much.
It's really hard to get far by screwing people. Everyone has conflicts, but people getting wealthy in a place like modern USA are doing it much more by building and serving, not lying/cheating/stealing/killing/etc.
"getting wealthy in a place like modern USA are doing it much more by building and serving, not lying/cheating/stealing/killing/etc."
Perhaps you are not aware of a little insignificant place called Washington.
I really wonder just how many really rich and powerful people there are in the US (or even the world) who did not have to horse trade with that little town.
And what was it that they traded, I wonder? Yes, I'm sure it was all on the up and up, and nothing illegal or immoral was done.
Everyone gets rich through their own hard work, blood, sweat, and tears. And no one else gets hurt in the process.
And don't even get me started on the violence inherent in the system that makes so much "wealth building" possible.
Perhaps you are not aware of a little insignificant place called Washington.
I really wonder just how many really rich and powerful people there are in the US (or even the world) who did not have to horse trade with that little town.
And what was it that they traded, I wonder? Yes, I'm sure it was all on the up and up, and nothing illegal or immoral was done.
Everyone gets rich through their own hard work, blood, sweat, and tears. And no one else gets hurt in the process.
And don't even get me started on the violence inherent in the system that makes so much "wealth building" possible.
This is baseless conjecture, bordering on conspiracy theory. Nothing you've said is remotely plausible, it's all hyperbole.
Who keeps voting up your comments? That's the real conspiracy here.
Who keeps voting up your comments? That's the real conspiracy here.
The bigger question is whether, given that real wages in the US have stagnated for the last 20-30 years, the outsize compensation given to elites is a function of productivity gains increasingly depending on them or just an increase in relative bargaining power.
Re: Bargaining power - how can "average joes" increase their bargaining power? Especially as unions have a pretty bad name...
And why do unions have a pretty bad name?[in the USA] I would argue that it is in large part due to ceaseless anti-union propaganda by the rich and their minions.
I've heard more anti-union sentiment from people who had to be in unions to to get a particular job and then were forced to go on strike for a settlement that really only benefited the union leaders or from people who lost their jobs because going on strike caused the company go out of business. Maybe unions do some good, but it's not just the rich who don't like unions.
I'm not arguing that unions are terrible, just that the perception/marketing of unions is unfavorable for most Americans.
Which begs the question: how does the "little guy" re-take some bargaining power? "Unions" under a different name?
Which begs the question: how does the "little guy" re-take some bargaining power? "Unions" under a different name?
> Rich folk affect the rest of us in two big ways. First, the way they spend their money has all kinds of ripple effects. Their hunches move markets. Their consumption supports a whole sub-economy of hoteliers, watchmakers and financial advisers. And their philanthropy funds schools, pressure groups and research into tropical diseases.
Article misses that inventions start as only affordable by wealthy people, but that follows into commoditization and everyone gets to benefit from them. People get so envious of what they don't have, failing to notice the asinine amounts of prosperity around us, things the kings of old could have only dreamed of.
Anyways, I am coming to terms with the fact that human nature doesn't like anyone having more... I'll do what I reasonably can to not participate in various redistributions and confiscations, but I'm starting to accept that there'll always be people wanting to do it and attempting it.
Article misses that inventions start as only affordable by wealthy people, but that follows into commoditization and everyone gets to benefit from them. People get so envious of what they don't have, failing to notice the asinine amounts of prosperity around us, things the kings of old could have only dreamed of.
Anyways, I am coming to terms with the fact that human nature doesn't like anyone having more... I'll do what I reasonably can to not participate in various redistributions and confiscations, but I'm starting to accept that there'll always be people wanting to do it and attempting it.
Is the nigh-universal human characteristic of greater unhappiness with visible wealth disparity than with lower absolute wealth a sign that we need to engineer better humans, or that governments should reduce inequality even at the cost of average wealth?
ISTM either or both could be the case, in parallel or in sequence.
ISTM either or both could be the case, in parallel or in sequence.
The article misses out the worst effects of rich people: they fund politicians. See Domhoff on Who Rules America.
tl;dr: The article says that usually rising inequality is a sign of a broken system somewhere, and that governments should fix the brokenness rather than attacking the rich directly. In the US, they blame the banking system. In China, the problem is the laws that prevent migration between countryside and city.
I think it's funny that they use the term "Propagandists" when refering to Al-Queda, but "Think Tank" when referring to the USA. Maybe there's actually a difference between a think tank and a propagandist. Can someone elucidate me?
Or they might have just been more successful at screwing over their competitors; could have lied, bribed, cheated, stolen, slept, or killed their way to riches; could have managed to convince a whole lot of suckers to buy crap that they didn't need or that was even harmful to them.. etc. All tried and true ways of getting rich.