4 ms·

>> usually is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence! >> Generated wealth is a very, very coarse measure of the contribution No it’s not. If i generat

>> usually is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence! >> Generated wealth is a very, very coarse measure of the contribution No it’s not. If i generate my wealth by being born to a rich person. In what way have i contributed more to society than a nurse who declared bankruptcy after the latest food and energy price increases? It’s not because of the extremes of my example, it’s because wealth doesn’t accrue as a function of contribution to society.

nine_k 4y ago
>> usually > is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence! You can safely replace it with "the majority". > If i generate my wealth by being being born to a rich person. In what way have i contributed In no way. You have not generated any wealth, you've inherited it. Andrew Carnegie generated wealth. "Colonel" Sanders generated wealth. Hell, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk generated wealth, as did any guy who runs a profitable pizza joint of a food truck. Interestingly, their contribution to the society, if not adequately measurable, is undeniably visible.
- CraigJPerry 4y ago
  >> the majority Not a high enough bar to decide whether someone should gain benefit of society >> In no way That seems like a catastrophic hole in your boat then? I can have lots of wealth - and so by your idea qualify for all the benefits society has to offer - yet having contributed less than the bum did before he fell out of a productive path in life. There’s too many holes in the idea that wealth can be used even as a rough proxy. Pick any low productivity roles with high value in society, from pastors / chaplains to a family carer. These are high value to society but they’re economic drains.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    We are disagreeing mostly because we seem to discuss separate problems. My point is that the amount of wealth acquired through doing business has a posiitive correlarion with doing something that the society values and finds good. Your point is that the amount of wealth generated and any other good done to the society should not prevent a person from gaining certain social benefits. These point do not contradict each other. Basic benefits (like protection of life) should be, and are given by the society equally to a bum and to a millionaire (even thoough a millionaire can also buy an extra package on top of the universal protection). At least such is the idea and the letter of the law. This is basically the difference between commerce and love: love is unconditional. But the amount of matetial manifestations of love a society can give its members is limited by how rich it is. If you are poor yourself, you cannot help your poor neighbor, except maybe with a kind word.

nine_k 4y ago

>> usually > is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence! You can safely replace it with "the majority". > If i generate my wealth by being being born to a rich person. In what way have i contributed In no way. You have not generated any wealth, you've inherited it. Andrew Carnegie generated wealth. "Colonel" Sanders generated wealth. Hell, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk generated wealth, as did any guy who runs a profitable pizza joint of a food truck. Interestingly, their contribution to the society, if not adequately measurable, is undeniably visible.

CraigJPerry 4y ago
>> the majority Not a high enough bar to decide whether someone should gain benefit of society >> In no way That seems like a catastrophic hole in your boat then? I can have lots of wealth - and so by your idea qualify for all the benefits society has to offer - yet having contributed less than the bum did before he fell out of a productive path in life. There’s too many holes in the idea that wealth can be used even as a rough proxy. Pick any low productivity roles with high value in society, from pastors / chaplains to a family carer. These are high value to society but they’re economic drains.
- nine_k 4y ago
  We are disagreeing mostly because we seem to discuss separate problems. My point is that the amount of wealth acquired through doing business has a posiitive correlarion with doing something that the society values and finds good. Your point is that the amount of wealth generated and any other good done to the society should not prevent a person from gaining certain social benefits. These point do not contradict each other. Basic benefits (like protection of life) should be, and are given by the society equally to a bum and to a millionaire (even thoough a millionaire can also buy an extra package on top of the universal protection). At least such is the idea and the letter of the law. This is basically the difference between commerce and love: love is unconditional. But the amount of matetial manifestations of love a society can give its members is limited by how rich it is. If you are poor yourself, you cannot help your poor neighbor, except maybe with a kind word.