4 ms·

Suppose the tenth man controlled 99% of the wealth. Would his/her reaction be justified in going to another bar? Would the reaction be justified if at least p

Suppose the tenth man controlled 99% of the wealth. Would his/her reaction be justified in going to another bar? Would the reaction be justified if at least part of the wealth of the tenth person came from the work of the other nine? If it came from being in a country with roads, education, national defense, and smart worker then is it proper for the tenth person to view all of their wealth as theirs alone with no obligation to other?

richcollins 16y ago
It's a fallacy that all wealth is controlled and not created
- billjings 16y ago
  Likewise, it's a fallacy that all wealth is created and not controlled.
johngalt 16y ago
Even if the wealth came from a weekly poker game where purely chance determined who was wealthy, and it was zero sum. Wouldn't it still be reprehensible to expect the winner to pay the tab just because he won?
- yequalsx 16y ago
  Just about everyone who makes a great deal of money does so because of the type of society we live in. Does so because of the type of workforce we have. Is protected by the police and our military. The analogy you've given is a bad one because of these facts. Living in a society is not analogous to a poker game.
  - johngalt 16y ago
    You put the cart before the horse. Society doesn't create wealth, wealth creates society. Consider the ghost towns of the southwest. Strike gold and an entire town springs up overnight with theatres, shops, bars, schools, etc... When the mine runs out it all dissappears as quickly as it came; regardless of how large the workforce of the miners, or effective the law enforcement. I do agree that it's not analogus, because it's not zero-sum, and it's not decided by chance to the same degree. If anything making the scenario more unfair.
    - yequalsx 16y ago
      Whenever humans congregate in sufficient numbers a society is formed. This has been going on for at least the last 10,000 years. This has nothing to do with wealth as far as I know. At least, not in the sense that the term is colloquially used.
    - eftpotrm 16y ago
      You're talking about society at the micro-level though, not the national level. Some of them were immigrants from outside but a large proportion were moving from other communities in the nation and their ability to do that while retaining their previous prosperity was insured by the society they were investing in through their tax code. I actually think insurance can be quite a good model of the tax system. I'm insuring my assets against a total societal breakdown and confistcation, a la the Bolshevik revolution. I pay more than some because I have a higher asset base to lose but less than others who have more than I.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
If it came from being in a country with roads, education, national defense, and smart worker then is it proper for the tenth person to view all of their wealth as theirs alone with no obligation to other? Ok - the tenth worker has an obligation to pay for this stuff. But about 60% of the government budget is just wealth transfers, and has nothing to do with the public goods you mentioned. Why does the tenth worker have an obligation to pay for that? (I'll ignore the fact that education is a private good. I'll also ignore the many wealth transfers hidden inside the public goods you describe, e.g. inflated teacher comp packages, unnecessary military spending which funnels money to various congressional districts.). http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html (All #s taken from official sources. I use this link because it is t he only source I've found which combines both state and federal numbers into one chart.)
- yequalsx 16y ago
  One shouldn't include Social Security in government expenditures because it's a pension system that is funded largely by the recipients. It's also not in trouble. Medicare and Medicaid have problems but not Social Security. Social Security is a government run pension system so it is included in budget numbers. It is for the reasons I've stated that Social Security is not part of the discretionary budget. The discretionary budget is dwarfed by defense related spending. And this is just the 'on the books' spending in defense related activities. When one factors in the supplemental spending on defense activities then the share of defense spending is even greater. Highways, national defense, and education are a large majority of the discretionary budget. Edit: I'm only talking about federal spending as that is what the topic of discussion appears to be.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    SS is a redistribution scheme which funnels money from the young to the old. It's also not funded by the recipients - the recipients voted to borrow money from it, spend that money, and now expect other people to pay back their debts. It's a transfer no matter how you slice it. All pyramid schemes are about redistribution - they have no other purpose. Same thing for medicare, medicaid, welfare, and even big portions of defense and education. See the numbers I linked to - most government spending is redistribution, not public goods.

richcollins 16y ago

It's a fallacy that all wealth is controlled and not created

billjings 16y ago
Likewise, it's a fallacy that all wealth is created and not controlled.

johngalt 16y ago

Even if the wealth came from a weekly poker game where purely chance determined who was wealthy, and it was zero sum. Wouldn't it still be reprehensible to expect the winner to pay the tab just because he won?

yequalsx 16y ago
Just about everyone who makes a great deal of money does so because of the type of society we live in. Does so because of the type of workforce we have. Is protected by the police and our military. The analogy you've given is a bad one because of these facts. Living in a society is not analogous to a poker game.
- johngalt 16y ago
  You put the cart before the horse. Society doesn't create wealth, wealth creates society. Consider the ghost towns of the southwest. Strike gold and an entire town springs up overnight with theatres, shops, bars, schools, etc... When the mine runs out it all dissappears as quickly as it came; regardless of how large the workforce of the miners, or effective the law enforcement. I do agree that it's not analogus, because it's not zero-sum, and it's not decided by chance to the same degree. If anything making the scenario more unfair.
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    Whenever humans congregate in sufficient numbers a society is formed. This has been going on for at least the last 10,000 years. This has nothing to do with wealth as far as I know. At least, not in the sense that the term is colloquially used.
  - eftpotrm 16y ago
    You're talking about society at the micro-level though, not the national level. Some of them were immigrants from outside but a large proportion were moving from other communities in the nation and their ability to do that while retaining their previous prosperity was insured by the society they were investing in through their tax code. I actually think insurance can be quite a good model of the tax system. I'm insuring my assets against a total societal breakdown and confistcation, a la the Bolshevik revolution. I pay more than some because I have a higher asset base to lose but less than others who have more than I.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

If it came from being in a country with roads, education, national defense, and smart worker then is it proper for the tenth person to view all of their wealth as theirs alone with no obligation to other? Ok - the tenth worker has an obligation to pay for this stuff. But about 60% of the government budget is just wealth transfers, and has nothing to do with the public goods you mentioned. Why does the tenth worker have an obligation to pay for that? (I'll ignore the fact that education is a private good. I'll also ignore the many wealth transfers hidden inside the public goods you describe, e.g. inflated teacher comp packages, unnecessary military spending which funnels money to various congressional districts.). http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2008_US.html (All #s taken from official sources. I use this link because it is t he only source I've found which combines both state and federal numbers into one chart.)

yequalsx 16y ago
One shouldn't include Social Security in government expenditures because it's a pension system that is funded largely by the recipients. It's also not in trouble. Medicare and Medicaid have problems but not Social Security. Social Security is a government run pension system so it is included in budget numbers. It is for the reasons I've stated that Social Security is not part of the discretionary budget. The discretionary budget is dwarfed by defense related spending. And this is just the 'on the books' spending in defense related activities. When one factors in the supplemental spending on defense activities then the share of defense spending is even greater. Highways, national defense, and education are a large majority of the discretionary budget. Edit: I'm only talking about federal spending as that is what the topic of discussion appears to be.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  SS is a redistribution scheme which funnels money from the young to the old. It's also not funded by the recipients - the recipients voted to borrow money from it, spend that money, and now expect other people to pay back their debts. It's a transfer no matter how you slice it. All pyramid schemes are about redistribution - they have no other purpose. Same thing for medicare, medicaid, welfare, and even big portions of defense and education. See the numbers I linked to - most government spending is redistribution, not public goods.