8 ms·

Reminds me of this: The poor spendthrift vagabond says to a rich man: "I have discovered there is enough money in the world for all of us, if it was equally d

Reminds me of this: The poor spendthrift vagabond says to a rich man: "I have discovered there is enough money in the world for all of us, if it was equally divided; this must be done, and we shall all be happy together." "But," was the response, "if everybody was like you, it would be spent in two months, and what would you do then?" "Oh! divide again; keep dividing, of course!" https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/barnum/moneygetting/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/barnum/moneygetting/

manicdee 10y ago
Implying that the only difference between rich and poor is spending habits. Where in the real world we have confounding factors such as racism, sexism, cultural norms, differing costs of transit and habitation, limited opportunities and limits on resources.
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  It seems to me like it's the only one that matters because it's the one that an individual has the most control over. Other confounding factors are externalities that as an individual you cannot always control but guess what you can always do? Save, save, save and if you can, innovate and reap the fruits of your discipline and hard work. Collectivism should be avoided.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >It seems to me like it's the only one that matters You literally have to do nothing to cash a rent check, receive share dividends or interest on a loan. From a systems' perspective that's parasitism.
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      You are simplifying to the level of dishonesty.
      - crdoconnor 10y ago
        There's really no other way to characterize non-gift exchanges of wealth that the recipient did not create. The only thing that stops this system of parasitic wealth transfer from spinning out of control is re-redistributive taxation.
        JanezStupar 10y ago
        Your lack of self awareness is incredible. How are you yourself different from the vilified "rent seeker"?
        crdoconnor 10y ago
        Instead of consuming more value than I create, I create more value than I am compensated for. Because I derive my income from my work.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        JanezStupar 10y ago
        And thus you are seeking rent from those with more property than yourself. Fantastic.
        crdoconnor 10y ago
        People who own yield bearing properties (e.g. landlords - not me) are extracting value from others. You can spin that fact any way that you want but it's still a fact. That's why I don't call it redistributive taxation. It's re-redistributive taxation.
        _andromeda_ 10y ago
        >The only thing that stops this system of parasitic wealth transfer from spinning out of control is re-redistributive taxation. At least we're in agreement that parasitism is not a desirable outcome. We seem to disagree on what constitutes parasitic behavior. First of all, I think that the idea of estate tax is lunacy in and of itself but now that we have it, let's think about what you're saying; that it's not okay for an individual upon death to transfer his/her wealth to a person of their choosing (whom they may have mentored to further a legacy they were passionate about) but that it is okay for the proletariat to forcibly acquire said wealth because they know better? How is that not outright theft? I would like the opportunity to freely determine how my acquired wealth will be spent after I'm dead. If I would like to leave it to a mentee of mine to further some work I had began, then being the acquirer of said wealth, I deserve that right. You know, this experiment is already done and dusted. Any time you advocate for egalitarianism, look at the results of "The Berlin Wall's great human experiment" then be afraid. What sort of government shoots its own people to prevent them from running away from the horrid conditions they've created? I'll tell you which one, a socialist/communist one.
- eggy 10y ago
  I agree is it overly simplistic, but even factoring in your list of factors, spending habits are very key. See my other remark up top about financial literacy. The U.S. ranks 6th worldwide in wages, but 25th in wealth, since so many in the US live off of credit, and don't save as much as their Chinese counterparts for one example. Irrespective of populist banter, the top 0.1% pay about 40% of the tax revenue the Federal government collects. I think our tax system is more progressive than popular opinion makes it out to be. If you earn over $450,000 a year, you are in the top 1% by wage.
djrobstep 10y ago
This anecdote is dumb and wrong, but is a handy way to call poor people trash when you're afraid to say so directly, I guess.
- vixen99 10y ago
  If I say the anecdote is perceptive and right you'd expect me to give reasons wouldn't you especially if I add an unpleasantly tendentious opinion?
  - throwaway049 10y ago
    I think it is wrong because the people advocating cutting the pie differently are not poor, spendthrift vagabonds but people with jobs who believe that they are not getting a fair cut of the wealth they create.
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      And their act of believing automatically makes it true and justified? That is called narcissism. From my anecdotal experience it is too often people who are themselves near or at 1% trying to justify how the "rich" are taking something away from them.
    - Pyxl101 10y ago
      > I think it is wrong because the people advocating cutting the pie differently are not poor, You mean, the people who are advocating for taking someone else's pie. Where does this idea come from that the rich are "taking" from them? No one takes from you, except for the government when they collect taxes. All other relationships are consensual relationships negotiated by people who are all looking for the best deal they can find. Someone pays me for my labor, and in return for compensation I give them my labor. It's a fair deal and entered willingly. If I did not think it was a fair deal, then I could offer my labor to someone else and look for a better one, or I could start my own business and work for myself. If you think that someone else is taking from you or paying an unfair price, then start your own business. You might end up with a different perspective on the value that business owners and capitalists have in society. When you start a business, all of the wealth you create is done with your own hand: you provide a product or service, and you convince people to give you their money in exchange for it. They do, and (hopefully) you end up with more money than it costs to create the product or service, and so you profit. The difference is, no one is taking care of you by saying, "Hey, just come into work every day and we'll pay you." The business owner needs to make sure its suppliers deliver product on time, and its clients pay what they owe on time, and handle various sorts of concerns that are easy to fail to recognize. The business owner needs to make sure their facilities are operational, and that laborers have the tools and supplies they need to do the job, otherwise work stops! There's a chance that your business can crash and you'll be left with nothing. You take on a risk that you work for years and end up with essentially nothing, because your company might be running out of money, and no one might be willing to buy your (at that point) failing, borderline worthless company. There's a lot of risk involved, especially in companies that develop new products -- the value of the product isn't known, and so you're taking on a risk that the company itself might collapse due to being immature, and a further risk that the product might not be valuable, and many more risks. If anyone be believes that they or someone are "not getting a fair cut", then they are welcome to strike out on their own or with like minded people and create their own organization. This website frequently writes about organizations that were created by just a few people, delivered incredible value, and so grew into something great. Furthermore, if this company founder is correct in their theory that organizations that employ laborers are not giving the laborers a fair share, then the new company that they found will be able to and will choose to pay laborers much more than any competitor will (due to recognizing their true value). In paying more for the labor, this company will be able to attract by far the best laborers and hire as many people as it needs. Competitors meanwhile will be starved for talent and will suffer. In this way, a company that fairly values and fairly compensates the work produces by its laborers will out-compete companies that undervalue their laborers. In the end, companies that value worker labor correctly will come out on top. If you have studied economics, and you have followed this reasoning, then you should be open to the possibility that laborers are in fact fairly compensated for the value they produce. That's not to say that we should not have progressive taxes, but when you recognize this, you might look differently at the idea that peoples' value is being "stolen". They're willingly trading it at a price they negotiated. You shouldn't be sour about a deal you negotiated and accepted; and you shouldn't be mad at someone that a better deal isn't available. Perhaps I think I should be paid $1 million dollars per year, but just because I believe that doesn't make it true. A person deserves to have the compensation that they earn by providing value to others, at a rate the other people agree to willingly (and enough to say alive, whichever is greater).

manicdee 10y ago

Implying that the only difference between rich and poor is spending habits. Where in the real world we have confounding factors such as racism, sexism, cultural norms, differing costs of transit and habitation, limited opportunities and limits on resources.

_andromeda_ 10y ago
It seems to me like it's the only one that matters because it's the one that an individual has the most control over. Other confounding factors are externalities that as an individual you cannot always control but guess what you can always do? Save, save, save and if you can, innovate and reap the fruits of your discipline and hard work. Collectivism should be avoided.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >It seems to me like it's the only one that matters You literally have to do nothing to cash a rent check, receive share dividends or interest on a loan. From a systems' perspective that's parasitism.
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    You are simplifying to the level of dishonesty.
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      There's really no other way to characterize non-gift exchanges of wealth that the recipient did not create. The only thing that stops this system of parasitic wealth transfer from spinning out of control is re-redistributive taxation.
      - JanezStupar 10y ago
        Your lack of self awareness is incredible. How are you yourself different from the vilified "rent seeker"?
        crdoconnor 10y ago
        Instead of consuming more value than I create, I create more value than I am compensated for. Because I derive my income from my work.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        JanezStupar 10y ago
        And thus you are seeking rent from those with more property than yourself. Fantastic.
        crdoconnor 10y ago
        People who own yield bearing properties (e.g. landlords - not me) are extracting value from others. You can spin that fact any way that you want but it's still a fact. That's why I don't call it redistributive taxation. It's re-redistributive taxation.
      - _andromeda_ 10y ago
        >The only thing that stops this system of parasitic wealth transfer from spinning out of control is re-redistributive taxation. At least we're in agreement that parasitism is not a desirable outcome. We seem to disagree on what constitutes parasitic behavior. First of all, I think that the idea of estate tax is lunacy in and of itself but now that we have it, let's think about what you're saying; that it's not okay for an individual upon death to transfer his/her wealth to a person of their choosing (whom they may have mentored to further a legacy they were passionate about) but that it is okay for the proletariat to forcibly acquire said wealth because they know better? How is that not outright theft? I would like the opportunity to freely determine how my acquired wealth will be spent after I'm dead. If I would like to leave it to a mentee of mine to further some work I had began, then being the acquirer of said wealth, I deserve that right. You know, this experiment is already done and dusted. Any time you advocate for egalitarianism, look at the results of "The Berlin Wall's great human experiment" then be afraid. What sort of government shoots its own people to prevent them from running away from the horrid conditions they've created? I'll tell you which one, a socialist/communist one.
eggy 10y ago
I agree is it overly simplistic, but even factoring in your list of factors, spending habits are very key. See my other remark up top about financial literacy. The U.S. ranks 6th worldwide in wages, but 25th in wealth, since so many in the US live off of credit, and don't save as much as their Chinese counterparts for one example. Irrespective of populist banter, the top 0.1% pay about 40% of the tax revenue the Federal government collects. I think our tax system is more progressive than popular opinion makes it out to be. If you earn over $450,000 a year, you are in the top 1% by wage.

djrobstep 10y ago

This anecdote is dumb and wrong, but is a handy way to call poor people trash when you're afraid to say so directly, I guess.

vixen99 10y ago
If I say the anecdote is perceptive and right you'd expect me to give reasons wouldn't you especially if I add an unpleasantly tendentious opinion?
- throwaway049 10y ago
  I think it is wrong because the people advocating cutting the pie differently are not poor, spendthrift vagabonds but people with jobs who believe that they are not getting a fair cut of the wealth they create.
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    And their act of believing automatically makes it true and justified? That is called narcissism. From my anecdotal experience it is too often people who are themselves near or at 1% trying to justify how the "rich" are taking something away from them.
  - Pyxl101 10y ago
    > I think it is wrong because the people advocating cutting the pie differently are not poor, You mean, the people who are advocating for taking someone else's pie. Where does this idea come from that the rich are "taking" from them? No one takes from you, except for the government when they collect taxes. All other relationships are consensual relationships negotiated by people who are all looking for the best deal they can find. Someone pays me for my labor, and in return for compensation I give them my labor. It's a fair deal and entered willingly. If I did not think it was a fair deal, then I could offer my labor to someone else and look for a better one, or I could start my own business and work for myself. If you think that someone else is taking from you or paying an unfair price, then start your own business. You might end up with a different perspective on the value that business owners and capitalists have in society. When you start a business, all of the wealth you create is done with your own hand: you provide a product or service, and you convince people to give you their money in exchange for it. They do, and (hopefully) you end up with more money than it costs to create the product or service, and so you profit. The difference is, no one is taking care of you by saying, "Hey, just come into work every day and we'll pay you." The business owner needs to make sure its suppliers deliver product on time, and its clients pay what they owe on time, and handle various sorts of concerns that are easy to fail to recognize. The business owner needs to make sure their facilities are operational, and that laborers have the tools and supplies they need to do the job, otherwise work stops! There's a chance that your business can crash and you'll be left with nothing. You take on a risk that you work for years and end up with essentially nothing, because your company might be running out of money, and no one might be willing to buy your (at that point) failing, borderline worthless company. There's a lot of risk involved, especially in companies that develop new products -- the value of the product isn't known, and so you're taking on a risk that the company itself might collapse due to being immature, and a further risk that the product might not be valuable, and many more risks. If anyone be believes that they or someone are "not getting a fair cut", then they are welcome to strike out on their own or with like minded people and create their own organization. This website frequently writes about organizations that were created by just a few people, delivered incredible value, and so grew into something great. Furthermore, if this company founder is correct in their theory that organizations that employ laborers are not giving the laborers a fair share, then the new company that they found will be able to and will choose to pay laborers much more than any competitor will (due to recognizing their true value). In paying more for the labor, this company will be able to attract by far the best laborers and hire as many people as it needs. Competitors meanwhile will be starved for talent and will suffer. In this way, a company that fairly values and fairly compensates the work produces by its laborers will out-compete companies that undervalue their laborers. In the end, companies that value worker labor correctly will come out on top. If you have studied economics, and you have followed this reasoning, then you should be open to the possibility that laborers are in fact fairly compensated for the value they produce. That's not to say that we should not have progressive taxes, but when you recognize this, you might look differently at the idea that peoples' value is being "stolen". They're willingly trading it at a price they negotiated. You shouldn't be sour about a deal you negotiated and accepted; and you shouldn't be mad at someone that a better deal isn't available. Perhaps I think I should be paid $1 million dollars per year, but just because I believe that doesn't make it true. A person deserves to have the compensation that they earn by providing value to others, at a rate the other people agree to willingly (and enough to say alive, whichever is greater).