Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists

From: The Trucker (mikcob_at_verizon.net)
Date: 06/09/04 

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:04:29 -0700

Matt Timmermans wrote:

>
> "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8uYwc.13105$QI2.131@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> I misread this the first time I saw it, probably because it's extremely
> odd.
>
> I believe it's actually a pretty moderate position...
>
> OK, yes, that is rather odd for sci.econ.

No. It is not a "moderate" position.

>> Why would you ever think that the "most socially efficient distribution
>> of
>> wealth is highly skewed"? What does that even mean?
>
> It means that there should be such a thing as rich people. Taken in
> moderation, they can be of great benefit to society.

Rich people should be tolerated only if they become rich or stay
rich by virtue of their contribution to society. Their "benefit"
to society is what they did to _become_ rich. It is not what they
do after the fact. Their wealth is inconsequential but for the
distortions such wealth may bring to an otherwise the _free_ market.

Unless they CONTINUE to make a contribution by organizing and
promoting ventures that are of benefit to the community they
provide no beneficial service. To say that an
individual of inherited wealth is a superior judge of what
is to be done and how is a very bad mistake. The rich are not to
be protected by special privilege simply because THEY, and
apparently YOU, believe they are some superior "breed" of
humankind.

>> Bizarre. You're taking the position that the wealthy should be able to
>> consume at higher levels and not work or take high risks to maintain
>> their wealth.
>
> To some non-zero extent, yes, because we couldn't maintain any significant
> number of rich people without such measures.

I have NO desire to "maintain" some privileged caste of rich people:

http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/aristocracy.php
 
>> > Without such mechanisms, the distribution of wealth would tend to go
> flat.
>>
>> And the problem with that is...?
>
> Less variety and more mediocrity -- a world without pyramids or palaces of
> any sort.

The advance of art and the advance of the human species will continue
without special protections for a nobility.

>> > There may be too much rent available today, and deciding how much is
> best
>> is
>> > part of the problem I referred to as important above, but the basic
> notion
>> > of rent is not inherently evil when it is created and maintained by
>> > consensus.
>>
>> No, it should be maintained by *informed consensus*.
>
> We could do with a more informed populous, but I think people are informed
> enough that the privileges that accompany wealth are created by an
> informed
> consensus.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

> They just aren't adequately controlled.

And this?

> After all, most people would like to be rich. Very few think we should
> fix it so that being rich is no fun.

If rent is taxed then getting rich and being rich is still all that it
was before for those who actually make a contribution to society.

>> Bizarre and incoherent. Rent is zero-sum---when you collect rent,
>> someone
>> else pays for it. So when your kids benefit by collecting rent, others'
>> kids lose.
>
> Yes, and when other people's kids win, my kids pay their share of that.
> It's like a hockey pool.

Each generation should win or lose on its own merit. The sins of the
grandfather should not be visited on the grandkids.

>> Not only that; the benefits are conferred by an enforcement
>> regime backed by the government's monopoly on violence.
>
> They are conferred by consensus. That they are backed by the
> "government's monopoly on violence" is a good thing, because they would
> otherwise be backed by private armies, vigilantes, and lynch mobs.

http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/The_Mob.php

We DO NOT HAVE and INFORMED consensus.

>> It's not petty jealousy---it's a position informed by a *coherent* theory
> of
>> social justice as well as theory and empirical results on economic
>> efficiency, as opposed to incoherent feudalistic rantings informed by a
>> sense of entitlement.
>
> Well, I'll grant that it's not just petty jealousy. I'll even grant that
> your theory of social justice may be coherent and internally consistent,
> but it is at odds with what most people want.

ONLY BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE ARE PURPOSEFULLY MISINFORMED. 

-- 
http://GreaterVoice.org (a work in progress)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
    ... I believe it's actually a pretty moderate position... ... OK, yes, that is rather odd for sci.econ. ... It means that there should be such a thing as rich people. ... So when your kids benefit by collecting rent, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: OT - Re: Sometimes, a Tax Cut for the Wealthy Can Hurt the Wealthy
    ... Taxing the rich is downright stupid. ... the more wealth they can ... I hear this sort of nonsense a lot. ... > Creativity doesn't come from "the rich". ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT - Re: Sometimes, a Tax Cut for the Wealthy Can Hurt the Wealthy
    ... >> people had to pay a lot of taxes... ... Taxing the rich is downright stupid. ... the more wealth they can ... Creativity doesn't come from "the rich". ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Voting
    ... Rita wrote: ... I'm curious - do you believe that taxing ONLY rich people to fund ... I am not sure whether providing free preschool for all is a "biurning" ... sons who lived in Belgium for a couple of years and there kids can ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Neocon Is: Growing Income Inequality
    ... But, so will wealth. ... loopholes afforded to the wealthy in the US tax code. ... cited "inheritance" as their sources of wealth. ... You obviously make less than $150,000 (rich by no measure), or you ...
    (alt.politics)
Loading