Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 06/11/04
- Next message: Bodhisattvacat: "Equilibrium theory, altruism and self-interest"
- Previous message: Mikito Harakiri: "Re: www.archimedesplutonium.com ranked #9 on Google"
- In reply to: Les Cargill: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Next in thread: The Trucker: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:53:08 GMT
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:07:19 GMT, Les Cargill
<lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:37:18 GMT, Les Cargill
>> <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>>I see large pockets of non-entropy which were largely made
>>>possible by the accumlation of capital.
>>>
>>>Capital has a catalytic effect on the value of labor.It
>>>makes it worth more.
>>
>> Yes, but now you're equivocating. Matt was talking about wealth, not
>> capital. Now you've shifted the terms to capital in the economic
>> sense, which has little or nothinbg to do with wealth in the sense
>> Matt meant.
>
>Well, I sensed that Matt was implying that the wealth will
>probably become capital - which is why I was blathering of
>marginal utility.
But it will only become capital if production is rewarded more than
rent seeking -- which is where we came in.
>Noted, agreed - but I think it's a short step to capital
>from big wealth. *Most* normal people wanna see the money
>work.
Nope. Those who have it just want it to yield as much unearned income
at as little risk as possible. In the current environment, they would
far rather just collect economic rents than go to the risk, effort and
inconvenience of investing their wealth in productive capital.
><snip>
>>>No, I want more rail voltage to drive the whole blasted machine.
>>
>> How could the voltage be more than by conferring rewards exactly
>> commensurate with contributions? Any interference with that has to
>> _reduce_ the overall voltage.
>>
>>>I see this huge correlation between inequity and "progress".
>>
>> ?? Where?
>
>19th century America and England. 20th century, too.
Nope. Flat wrong. Leaving aside the slavery issue in the USA, their
eras of greatest progress were eras of relatively fair and egalitarian
distribution of wealth and after-tax income -- and of public recovery
of economic rents.
Before WW I, most government spending in the USA was funded by taxes
that bore on land rents; and even today, local and state property
taxes in the USA recover a larger fraction of land rent than in most
other countries (which is all that keeps it from following so many
other elitist, privilege-ridden societies off a cliff).
The famed British Income Tax introduced to fund the fight against
Napoleon, the exemplary success of which is so often cited as a
justification for taxing earned income, in fact fell almost entirely
on _un_earned income, especially land rents: the word "income" in
Britain at that time meant passive _investment_ income, especially
land rent, not earned income, which was called "wages," nor profits,
which were called "profits." Among the well-to-do, there was a sharp
distinction between those who had "income" (primarily the nobility and
landed gentry) and those who were "in trade" (i.e., operating
productive enterprises).
As a general rule, unnaturally great inequity is _inversely_ related
to material progress, as seen in countless historical examples like
France's Ancien Regime, Tsarist Russia, Edo-period Japan, the hidalgo
culture of colonial Spain and Latin America, or China and India almost
any time before the mid 20th C. You are perhaps allowing yourself to
be distracted and deceived by the 20th C experiments with socialism,
which dove into poverty and stagnation by dint of public
appropriations of privately created value and other Procrustean
measures of forced leveling. There is a happy medium of inequality:
too much is just as destructive as too little.
> The most uequal distributions of wealth are found in
>> stagnant Latin American dictatorships, and the most rapid progress is
>> typically found where distributions are most equal.
>
>Latin Americ inherits cultural artifacts from climate,
>Spain and the Church that lead it to be less dynamic
>than it could be.
Nope. It is a continent steeped in landowner privilege, and it shows.
Public recovery of land and natural resource rents is minimal to
non-existent in virtually every country from Guatemala to Argentina,
and the few exceptions like Venezuela and Costa Rica, while they do
still have problems of their own, nevertheless stand out as
conspicuous successes next to their less equitable neighbors.
>And I'm referring to material/industrial progress, not
>social progress per se.
So am I.
>>>>>Considering the strength of both capital markets as well as
>>>>>not-for-profit sectors of the economy, this does not seem
>>>>>without observable effect. Some of the most politically
>>>>>radical engines in the U.S. are the various foundations
>>>>>of the scion of the old Robber Barons.
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense. They just subsidize the loud but safely stupid types who
>>>>can be counted on to drown out the real voices for change.
>>>
>>>Real voices for change are largely ignored because nobody really
>>>cares what they say.
>>
>> Until they get too angry to _listen_ to what they say...
>
>Who's really angry? I'm serious - I really don't see it. We
>have McVeigh type outliers, but those are relatively few.
I agree. People tend not to get angry until things get really
egregious, and by then it's too late for patient, rational debate or
non-violent solutions. We've seen it over and over again throughout
history.
>I've argued this with a half dozen well educated Europeans,
>and a few Canadians, and I do not see a serious problem.
>
>Even Mexico is more prosperous than in many years - with
>lots of hard problems ahead.
??? Mexico is prospering now because now it gets a lot of public
revenue from _oil_ rents, relieving the tax burden on earned income.
Hello?
>But geez, there's even an emerging
>consumer class in China.
And an emerging landlord class, unfortunately...
-- Roy L
- Next message: Bodhisattvacat: "Equilibrium theory, altruism and self-interest"
- Previous message: Mikito Harakiri: "Re: www.archimedesplutonium.com ranked #9 on Google"
- In reply to: Les Cargill: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Next in thread: The Trucker: "Re: Lucas: Shame on the redistributionists"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
