18 ms·

There's nothing wrong with someone getting rich provided they contribute a proportional amount of value to society. Problem is that since the post-WII period (a

by xiler 11y ago

There's nothing wrong with someone getting rich provided they contribute a proportional amount of value to society. Problem is that since the post-WII period (also called the Golden Age of Capitalism) such rewards have been happening less and less [1,2]. In fact, I think reducing inequality is essential for promoting productivity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_econ... [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_produ...

branchless 11y ago
Also how many of these people are preserving their wealth by diverting their justly earned income into rentier activity, such as property? In addition many patents are rentier activity. They are taking collected human knowledge and ring-fencing an area to derive economic rent. I'm not even sure I'm interested in Graham's writings on lisp. Economics, forget it.
- replicatorblog 11y ago
  Patents are VERY different than property in that they expire in less than 20 years (at least in the US).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- prostoalex 11y ago
  If intellectual property protections present an economic constraint, then countries with weak intellectual property protections would outperform countries with strong intellectual property protections. Yet for some reason countries with weak IP protection do not present the world with abundance of new technologies or pharma.
cko 11y ago
But is it wrong for a rich person to hoard wealth, or to spend only on luxuries for themselves? Why do they have to "contribute to society"? I'm by no means wealthy, and at my age of 29 I've donated more money than many of my coworkers. And I'm all for a portion of tax dollars supporting the underprivileged. But when I read about Larry Ellison's yacht-racing hobby, I think to myself, "good for him." He can spend his money on whatever he wants, right? I don't see that he owes anyone anything just because he has more.
- Futurebot 11y ago
  That's not the argument. The "contribution" is through taxes to the society that enabled them to get rich in the first place. Sure, some people are upset about obscene displays of wealth (though in today's America, those people don't seem to have much of a voice), but by and large, no one begrudges rich people from enjoying themselves (this is America, after all. We love our rich people as a rule, even when some of them are terrible people individually.) We do begrudge people avoiding taxes, buying legislation and legislators, funding think tanks that support only the interests of the wealthy, and blowing up the financial system and/or economy.
- civilian 11y ago
  > Why do they have to "contribute to society"? This gets to the core of the question! How did a rich startup person get wealthy anyway? They built something that people wanted. People said: "hey, that thing you built, I value it at $20 and you're giving it away at $10, so I'm happy to buy it!" Anyone who made money from business has already created wealth and contributed to society, via the market. To the people who would disagree with me-- Look at your surroundings. Do you feel oppressed by the manufacturers of your laptop? Do you feel like you have no other option but to buy a $5 latte at the coffeeshop you're at? Are you being held at gunpoint by your new-used car? Do you wish the refrigeration oligarchs never existed? No! You are getting _insane_ value out of these relatively cheap items. Your $5 latte couldn't even exist a century ago. So it's okay that all the people who worked 40 hours a week to bring you your gadgets get a cut.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago

by xiler 11y ago

branchless 11y ago

Also how many of these people are preserving their wealth by diverting their justly earned income into rentier activity, such as property? In addition many patents are rentier activity. They are taking collected human knowledge and ring-fencing an area to derive economic rent. I'm not even sure I'm interested in Graham's writings on lisp. Economics, forget it.

replicatorblog 11y ago
Patents are VERY different than property in that they expire in less than 20 years (at least in the US).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
prostoalex 11y ago
If intellectual property protections present an economic constraint, then countries with weak intellectual property protections would outperform countries with strong intellectual property protections. Yet for some reason countries with weak IP protection do not present the world with abundance of new technologies or pharma.

cko 11y ago

But is it wrong for a rich person to hoard wealth, or to spend only on luxuries for themselves? Why do they have to "contribute to society"? I'm by no means wealthy, and at my age of 29 I've donated more money than many of my coworkers. And I'm all for a portion of tax dollars supporting the underprivileged. But when I read about Larry Ellison's yacht-racing hobby, I think to myself, "good for him." He can spend his money on whatever he wants, right? I don't see that he owes anyone anything just because he has more.

Futurebot 11y ago
That's not the argument. The "contribution" is through taxes to the society that enabled them to get rich in the first place. Sure, some people are upset about obscene displays of wealth (though in today's America, those people don't seem to have much of a voice), but by and large, no one begrudges rich people from enjoying themselves (this is America, after all. We love our rich people as a rule, even when some of them are terrible people individually.) We do begrudge people avoiding taxes, buying legislation and legislators, funding think tanks that support only the interests of the wealthy, and blowing up the financial system and/or economy.
civilian 11y ago
> Why do they have to "contribute to society"? This gets to the core of the question! How did a rich startup person get wealthy anyway? They built something that people wanted. People said: "hey, that thing you built, I value it at $20 and you're giving it away at $10, so I'm happy to buy it!" Anyone who made money from business has already created wealth and contributed to society, via the market. To the people who would disagree with me-- Look at your surroundings. Do you feel oppressed by the manufacturers of your laptop? Do you feel like you have no other option but to buy a $5 latte at the coffeeshop you're at? Are you being held at gunpoint by your new-used car? Do you wish the refrigeration oligarchs never existed? No! You are getting _insane_ value out of these relatively cheap items. Your $5 latte couldn't even exist a century ago. So it's okay that all the people who worked 40 hours a week to bring you your gadgets get a cut.
- marcoperaza 11y ago