8 ms·

I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or not so I’ll just remind everyone of Adam Smith: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and th

I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or not so I’ll just remind everyone of Adam Smith: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." In this country there was a time yes where inheriting it is shady and it’s something I fear our conservative brothers have forgotten. The problems of multi-generational wealth were clearly visible to our founders looking at Europe. It should be patently offensive to all Americans

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
theonething 5y ago
I don't get it. What business is it of ours if a wealthy person passes their wealth to their progeny?
- alpha_squared 5y ago
  Wealth is finite, despite how much some like to claim it's not zero-sum. Not everyone can be wealthy, so by definition there will be those who aren't. Inherited wealth allows the inheritors to start further along in wealth accumulation and widens the gap between the wealthy and those who aren't. That then locks up wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    I feel sad for you that you think people cannot create something from nothing. So if you gain something, does that means somebody else needs to lose? Is that how people justify stealing or scamming? Or is that how they cope with their envy that rich people must be stealing or scamming. I once knew a person that had this theory about happiness. If someone is happy, someone else needs to be sad. I feel sad for anyone who has this mindset. It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy.
    - 7952 5y ago
      Not the parent, but I think that is a bit harsh. Their definitely is a practical limit to the amount of resources humanity has immediate access to. Be that time, raw materials, capital or whatever. There obviously are ways to make those resources go further. But that is beyond the ability and scope of most of us to achieve. And wealth gives you the spare time and money to go look for those opportunities. I agree that the mindset of zero sum game is bad for you and society. But there are still real constraints.
    - Shacklz 5y ago
      > It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy. If you would like this world-view to undergo some critical analysis, I strongly recommend Anand Giridharadas' take in "Winners take All" (condensed in this google-talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM). He specifically addresses the negative points of the "win-win"-mentality, and in my opinion, makes a strong point that a society built on a "win-win" culture is bound to be doomed.
      - not1ofU 5y ago
        Thanks for posting this. About 20 minutes in, and he is talking about how to break google up, at google... nice. To the comment section (first comment): "To those at Google watching this who don't know the story: Google initially decided, for the first time in its history, to not publish this video to its Talks at Google site here on YouTube after it was recorded. This presentation was given on the second week of September, note the publishing time lag. Giridharadas contacted Google to ask why, and his contact said "I'm not on that team anymore" and was blown off. He then leaked the story to a leading tech journalist, who started calling Google for comment because she was working on a story about why, for the first time ever, a Talks at Google video was not published. They published it the same week -- obviously reluctantly and under pressure. The only reason you're seeing this guys is because power is doing damage control. . Wake the f** up."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
there's no problem with inheritance. What matters is the turnover of inheritance. If you have the same 200 families holding all the wealth for 500 years, you have a problem (like several countries in europe). There is nothing wrong with a hardworking person to reach wealth, and for heirs to keep it, if its properly managed. The issue is they should be able to lose it thru squander. Bail outs, lobbying, regulatory capture, prevent that natural ineptitude from taking place (securing thru connections what heirs couldn't do like their predecessors....that is, satisfying customers or creating shrewd innovation).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Well, since r > g, you will get wealth concentration if you have lower fertility rates.
fighterpilot 5y ago
It's quite to me natural to me, and I think Adam Smith is off base here. If the parents earned that wealth through voluntary exchange, and they didn't do so by exploiting negative externalities, then it's theirs to do with as they wish. If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them, start a charity, or give it all to their kids, that's their prerogative. It follows from the concept of private property. The parents earned that wealth at one point, in that someone voluntarily gave it to them in exchange for subjective utility of equal or greater value. What right is it of yours to take it away from them just because you don't approve of the way they're spending it? They can buy 500 Ferraris but can't give it to their kids? In my view it's plain theft dressed up in layers of abstraction and indirection just to hide that fact. (No, not all taxation is theft, as some level is necessary, but swiping half or all of someone's property is).
- LimaBearz 5y ago
  I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care. I agree ideologically with Adam’s premise though. It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it. The accumulation of wealth across multiple generations has an extremely long history spanning back centuries of corruption, self dealing, preferentially treatment, and the hoarding of the more desirable assets (land for example) that the heirs did not earn or work for and cannot be enjoyed by a new entrant in the market. Being entitled to something because of your blood is fundamentally unamerican. We fought for our independence from such a system. This country.. at least as how I was raised was one of grit, hard work, and innovation which determined who you’d be in life. A country where anyone with a novel idea or ruthless cunning can carve out a slice for themselves. The idea of inheritance undermines that, heirs did not earn anything by being born to the right parent, own things they did not work for. This country is too young to have the problems of some European nations past but I think it’s starting to go that way. I think the founders saw the problems caused by bloodline rule and heirs and didn’t want that here. There should be no inheritance. The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am. If a parent is wealthy then the kids will enjoy a life of potential high society, connections, and Ivy League educations, but they have to make it for themselves. I stand firmly behind that American ideal

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

theonething 5y ago

I don't get it. What business is it of ours if a wealthy person passes their wealth to their progeny?

alpha_squared 5y ago
Wealth is finite, despite how much some like to claim it's not zero-sum. Not everyone can be wealthy, so by definition there will be those who aren't. Inherited wealth allows the inheritors to start further along in wealth accumulation and widens the gap between the wealthy and those who aren't. That then locks up wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  I feel sad for you that you think people cannot create something from nothing. So if you gain something, does that means somebody else needs to lose? Is that how people justify stealing or scamming? Or is that how they cope with their envy that rich people must be stealing or scamming. I once knew a person that had this theory about happiness. If someone is happy, someone else needs to be sad. I feel sad for anyone who has this mindset. It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy.
  - 7952 5y ago
    Not the parent, but I think that is a bit harsh. Their definitely is a practical limit to the amount of resources humanity has immediate access to. Be that time, raw materials, capital or whatever. There obviously are ways to make those resources go further. But that is beyond the ability and scope of most of us to achieve. And wealth gives you the spare time and money to go look for those opportunities. I agree that the mindset of zero sum game is bad for you and society. But there are still real constraints.
  - Shacklz 5y ago
    > It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy. If you would like this world-view to undergo some critical analysis, I strongly recommend Anand Giridharadas' take in "Winners take All" (condensed in this google-talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM). He specifically addresses the negative points of the "win-win"-mentality, and in my opinion, makes a strong point that a society built on a "win-win" culture is bound to be doomed.
    - not1ofU 5y ago
      Thanks for posting this. About 20 minutes in, and he is talking about how to break google up, at google... nice. To the comment section (first comment): "To those at Google watching this who don't know the story: Google initially decided, for the first time in its history, to not publish this video to its Talks at Google site here on YouTube after it was recorded. This presentation was given on the second week of September, note the publishing time lag. Giridharadas contacted Google to ask why, and his contact said "I'm not on that team anymore" and was blown off. He then leaked the story to a leading tech journalist, who started calling Google for comment because she was working on a story about why, for the first time ever, a Talks at Google video was not published. They published it the same week -- obviously reluctantly and under pressure. The only reason you're seeing this guys is because power is doing damage control. . Wake the f** up."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago

there's no problem with inheritance. What matters is the turnover of inheritance. If you have the same 200 families holding all the wealth for 500 years, you have a problem (like several countries in europe). There is nothing wrong with a hardworking person to reach wealth, and for heirs to keep it, if its properly managed. The issue is they should be able to lose it thru squander. Bail outs, lobbying, regulatory capture, prevent that natural ineptitude from taking place (securing thru connections what heirs couldn't do like their predecessors....that is, satisfying customers or creating shrewd innovation).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 5y ago
Well, since r > g, you will get wealth concentration if you have lower fertility rates.

fighterpilot 5y ago

It's quite to me natural to me, and I think Adam Smith is off base here. If the parents earned that wealth through voluntary exchange, and they didn't do so by exploiting negative externalities, then it's theirs to do with as they wish. If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them, start a charity, or give it all to their kids, that's their prerogative. It follows from the concept of private property. The parents earned that wealth at one point, in that someone voluntarily gave it to them in exchange for subjective utility of equal or greater value. What right is it of yours to take it away from them just because you don't approve of the way they're spending it? They can buy 500 Ferraris but can't give it to their kids? In my view it's plain theft dressed up in layers of abstraction and indirection just to hide that fact. (No, not all taxation is theft, as some level is necessary, but swiping half or all of someone's property is).

LimaBearz 5y ago
I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care. I agree ideologically with Adam’s premise though. It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it. The accumulation of wealth across multiple generations has an extremely long history spanning back centuries of corruption, self dealing, preferentially treatment, and the hoarding of the more desirable assets (land for example) that the heirs did not earn or work for and cannot be enjoyed by a new entrant in the market. Being entitled to something because of your blood is fundamentally unamerican. We fought for our independence from such a system. This country.. at least as how I was raised was one of grit, hard work, and innovation which determined who you’d be in life. A country where anyone with a novel idea or ruthless cunning can carve out a slice for themselves. The idea of inheritance undermines that, heirs did not earn anything by being born to the right parent, own things they did not work for. This country is too young to have the problems of some European nations past but I think it’s starting to go that way. I think the founders saw the problems caused by bloodline rule and heirs and didn’t want that here. There should be no inheritance. The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am. If a parent is wealthy then the kids will enjoy a life of potential high society, connections, and Ivy League educations, but they have to make it for themselves. I stand firmly behind that American ideal