8 ms·

I'm so sick of people who think that wealth is a zero sum game. It, unequivocally, is not. The fact that Bill Gates has $50 Billion, does not mean that poor peo

by viggity 15y ago

I'm so sick of people who think that wealth is a zero sum game. It, unequivocally, is not. The fact that Bill Gates has $50 Billion, does not mean that poor people are some how worse off because of it. In fact, it is quite the contrary, poor people, rich people, all people are better off because Bill Gates and Microsoft brought computing to the masses, yielding untold magnitudes of increased productivity and more affordable goods of every stripe. Can anyone look me in the face and say, the world would be worse off if there were 10000 Bill Gates in the world? It is time to destroy this myth.

akie 15y ago
He's not saying that it's a zero sum game. He is not denying economic realities, he is not denying the right for people to be rich, or to become rich, or to aspire to become rich. He's just saying that a small amount of people helped themselves to a (too) large piece of the pie, and he tries to understand how we got there and whether or not this is a bad thing.
- Roybatty 15y ago
  He might have not said that it's a zero sum game, but you effectively did - "He's just saying that a small amount of people helped themselves to a (too) large piece of the pie"....pie being the keyword here
- viggity 15y ago
  who cares what percentage of the pie someone has, it matters how big the pie is. Suggesting or alluding to redistribution of wealth will inevitably shrink the overall size of the pie.
  - locopati 15y ago
    So if a small group of people have all the pie, but that pie is enormous, that's great? Even if you are not in that group and will never have a chance to come near the group, except perhaps, if you're lucky, as a pie server or perhaps one who cleans up after the pie party?
  - _delirium 15y ago
    I think it actually significantly matters at the extremes; having a large proportion of a country's wealth gives you significant relative power in that country's society, and so very clumpy wealth distributions produce more unstable, top-heavy societies and economies. I don't have much problem with moderate or even fairly large levels of inequality, but stuff like a small number of people controlling 20-30% of a country's resources tends to make the whole thing teeter a bit. I disagree with your last statement, and in general think the opposite is true; extremely large concentrations of wealth, of the kind seen in aristocratic or oligarchical societies, tend to shrink the size of the pie. A main question would be where the transition point is; I think the U.S. is probably still on the reasonably-good side of the line, though less comfortably so than it was in the 1950s-80s. There's very little (no?) evidence that modest levels of wealth distribution harm economic growth, either. A Soviet command economy, yes, but a social safety net in a market economy doesn't equal communism, and there's some modest evidence that it can actually improve entrepreneurship (because people end up less scared of leaving cushy corporate jobs).
  - ClHans 15y ago
    One quick aside: all taxes redistribute wealth, and the consequences of doing so are well-known and positive. There's simply nothing wrong with the "redistribution of wealth" as you seem to suggest. Now, onto the larger point. We care because unequal societies have a whole host of social ills: higher crime, lower social mobility, poorer health outcomes. There is, in fact, a wide and deep body of scientific literature about this. You are, of course, free to disagree with the science on income inequality, but that places the burden on you to say, "the science is wrong!", or to say, "high crime and poor health doesn't matter!" Good luck with that.
    - ClHans 15y ago
      Downvoted for what? For pointing out that all taxes redistribute wealth, and with this redistributed wealth we buy roads, food safety, police and fire, public education, a largely functioning justice system, and in fact the safety and security of a generally-free market...in another word...civilization? Or downvoted for pointing out that the observable evidence suggests that we, as a society, would be better off in a number of measurable ways (e.g. reduced crime rates, greater social mobility, better overall health), in a society with greater money equality? It may be a challenging idea if all one's ever heard is, "don't take my slice, just grow the pie," but there is, unfortunately, no evidence--historical or contemporary--that "just grow the pie" actually works in the real world.
      - functionoid 15y ago
        Do rich people use more roads, public education, food safety? What is your point in making rich people pay more for these services other than they worked hard for their money and you want to take a free ride?
        ClHans 15y ago
        Whether rich people use roads, public education, or food safety is beside the point. (And, frankly speaking, I'd venture to guess that rich people do use roads more, because poor people are more likely to ride the bus or walk.) They pay more because, if we taxed everyone at the same rate, we wouldn't have anywhere near enough money we needed to maintain even the somewhat shoddy state of civilization in the country. You may not like the idea that the government has to pay for all of the things it does, and that's a fair response, but it doesn't really address the bigger picture: what kind of quality of life do we want in this country? Just to play into the "low taxes for all" thought experiment, say we slash taxes across the board and have to cut a ton of stuff from our budget. Well, I can think of what I'd cut, and I'm sure you can do the same, and I'd bet there's some overlap, and some contention. But how would these cuts make life harder for your average American (who, mind you, is poor and sick and works their ass off week after week for very little wages)? If we don't care about them--if we throw them to the wolves of fate--is this the kind of country we want to live in, one we will take pride in? How would history view us, at the dawn of the 21st century? And, to be wise students of history, and reflect on how we got here, rather than assume our forebears were idiots who didn't know what they were doing, why do we have the regulations on business that we do? Why do we have food safety? Why do we have regulations on overtime pay? (And whose bright idea was it to exempt IT workers from that?) Why do we have regulations on medicine, or laws that dictate how and where we drive our cars? I'm not trying to ask a bunch of leading questions. I don't have the answers here. I just think it's useful to think more broadly than "a flat tax is a fair tax is a just tax is the right thing to do", both historically and ethically. enjoy,
  - ArtB 15y ago
    My problem is that interpersonal conflicts are strongly effected by wealth. Someone who can afford lots of lawyers have a much greater chance of winning than someone who can barely afford one. Often people settle just to avoid crippling legal costs. Also people with greater wealth can use that money to promote their ideas and persuade other to their positions. They can afford their children much better opportunities. Not to mention that greater wealth disparities encourage keeping-up-with-the-Joneses arms races and other social ills. I honestly suspect that shrinking the pie but making it more evenly distributed would be best for all for the increased social harmony and stability.
    - ClHans 15y ago
      You don't need to suspect it. You can read the social science literature and have some confidence that hard-working researchers have confirmed your suspicion. Here's a good place to start: Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction by Wilkerson and Pickett.
      - ClHans 15y ago
        I assume someone downvoted me for the typo (sorry! the name is supposed to be Wilkinson), and not because they find it uncomfortable when science supports ideas that run counter to their own. Here's another good resource, this time from Stanford - http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/ http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/ enjoy!
  - Gormo 15y ago
    What is this 'pie'? The analogy seems to imply that there's some pre-existing pool of wealth from which people draw shares of varying size, and I'm fairly sure that nothing like this exists in reality. Wealth doesn't originate in some pre-defined aggregation; it's generated by particular people in particular contexts. This concept of different people having different 'shares' of wealth relies on starting with some universal aggregation, and this always seems to be measured by calculating everyone's separate individual income and adding each of these values to into a single sum. But this implicitly acknowledges that wealth doesn't originate in an aggregation, so what's the justification for construing any aggregation at all?
- tomjen3 15y ago
  Bull. The moment you involve the economic pie, you say it is zero sum. We may call this the pie falicy. Think of it not as one pie, but as trillions of pies. You get one by buying one or trading others for their pies. Under this model, what right do you have to your neighbors pie.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Who made it your neighbor's pie? Income inequality is driven by public policy (tax rates, mostly). High income tax brackets used to be higher, now they're lower. And they've produced easily detectable changes in income inequality. That's not a fundamental issue of property rights, it's just the way democracy works. That some people favor the policy and results that held from 1950-1970 doesn't make them communists. You agree, right? Your last sentence is just a Randian fantasy strawman. No one is talking about going into your bank account and taking money out. But certainly people are talking about tax policy, which changes every few years anyway. Are you interested in having a mature discussion about tax policy?
    - tomjen3 15y ago
      "No one is talking about going into your bank account and taking money out" My place of employment deposit my salary directly into my bank account, sans taxes. Are you saying that there is a material difference between taking the money before they end up in my bank account (i.e I never see them) or after (e.g. I have to write a check to the government each month)?
capisce 15y ago
Economic inequality hurts societies: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
jbooth 15y ago
Of course it's not a zero-sum game. We're a consumer economy. If the bottom 90% are having trouble paying their bills and don't buy as much stuff, the top 10% are going to feel the slowdown eventually. Think of it as your rational self-interest. As a matter of fact, you know that graph in the linked article, how it shoes that inequality was way lower from 1941-1979? Guess which period of the 20th century had the highest GDP growth. BTW, Bill Gates was in favor of a higher income tax in WA last time it came up, and as we all know is in the process of giving all his money away.
- bhousel 15y ago
  I'm not convinced that the top 10% sell things to the bottom 90%. We may have a situation where the different wealth brackets operate their own economies that really don't have much to do with each other. (I do agree with your main point that wealth creation isn't a zero sum game, which should be obvious to anyone by now).
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Different wealth brackets operating in their own economies, what? The guy who picks your oranges drives a lexus? Yeah, you're working for rich people, but somewhere along the line those people are making money by selling to people who work from a living. Personally, my software buys advertising on exchanges to sell to agencies who are acting for large companies who have subsidiaries who sell things to people who work for a living. It's just a question of how many degrees.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Different Bill Gates. The income tax advocate is Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates the software magnate.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    WSJ has him for it via a "source": http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/21/does-bill-gates-support-new-income-tax-for-wealthy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/21/does-bill-gates-suppo... He's strongly and unambiguously in favor of the estate tax: http://www.trustsestateslaw.com/2009/05/warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-on-the-estate-tax/ http://www.trustsestateslaw.com/2009/05/warren-buffett-and-b...
onemoreact 15y ago
For every Bill Gates there are many people who got rich by extracting a larger piece of the pie vs making the pie larger. Consider 401k's where designed not to maximize retirement income for middle class Americans they where setup so the companies that administer them could extract the largest possible slice of someone other persons pie. Over the lifetime of many plans they extract 20%-50% of all gains though direct and indirect fees. The SSA could administer the same program for literally 1/5th what people are being charged. Many housing developers get rich not from building houses, but buying land and then rezoning it to be worth more and then building houses. Effectively they leverage an areas existing infrastructure to increase the value of that land without paying for it. And often the way the do this is though direct and indirect bribery of local politicians. From this perspective the idea of zoning is simply a way for the well connected to make money. If instead you charged people for their share of the construction costs of existing roads, schools, bridges etc when they added a new single family home you could automatically pay for any needed upgrades rather than having existing homeowners subsides their infrastructure either by having already paid for it or sharing in the cost of building new infrastructure to support new immigrants. Edit: Of course when you start to dig into things Bill Gates also leveraged his connections to make most of his money. The reason he could sell an operating system he did not have to IBM vs them dealing with the guy that created it has everything to do with his connections and nothing to do with him actually building anything. PS: Often people get rich by doing both. They make a the pie slightly larger yet end up with a larger piece than the size of their increase. I would argue that the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff in this case is a direct tax on wealth say 1.5% per year on anything over 2 million instead of traditional capital gains. While it does little to those who are directly making money it drains the type of passive old boy networks that most damaging to economic growth.
- IanDrake 15y ago
  >The SSA could administer the same program for literally 1/5th what people are being charged. Most people aren't begging the SSA to manage their money on the cheap, so there must be some kind of benefit with those more expensive options. However, if you really think the SSA could do better with your money, I know someone who works there and could ask them where you can over send them more of your money.
locopati 15y ago
Are you denying that wealth has a gravitational effect towards wealth (i.e. it concentrates it) and that effect, when taken too far, has a negative effect on the society in which it occurs? There are plenty of examples from history (distant and recent) and plenty of studies to support the point. A broader based of wealth occurs when a society is balanced not solely because of the supreme talents of an individual. You could have all the talent in the world but if the infrastructure is falling apart, the educational system is struggling, and there aren't people who earn enough to purchase your goods, what good will it do you?
- maratd 15y ago
  > Are you denying that wealth has a gravitational effect towards wealth Money begets more money, certainly. > when taken too far, has a negative effect on the society in which it occurs? This isn't possible. A person can either spend money or store money. When they spend money, they are telling others to perform work. That money then gets transferred to other people. When they store money, that money gets placed in a bank or in an investment. In a bank, that money is immediately loaned out to someone else, creating a business or some venture, creating jobs and wealth for other people. In an investment, again, jobs are created and wealth for others is formed. Now, can all of this run in a closed loop among the privileged? Only in a society with heavy government intervention where the market is warped. In a healthy free economy, talented people are quickly recognized and quickly brought into the loop. In an unhealthy controlled economy, you must know the right people to be allowed into the loop and the people allowed into the loop are rarely talented. > A broader based of wealth occurs when a society is balanced not solely because of the supreme talents of an individual. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? History has already condemned your way of thinking.
  - vannevar 15y ago
    In a healthy free economy, talented people are quickly recognized and quickly brought into the loop. In an unhealthy controlled economy, you must know the right people to be allowed into the loop and the people allowed into the loop are rarely talented. The human tendency toward cronyism is universal. One could just as persuasively argue that FTC regulations and 'market-warping' affirmative action have made the economy healthier and freer for all.
diogenescynic 15y ago
Since we live in a society of auction markets, the more money other people have, in effect, the less you have.
- ef4 15y ago
  That's true for things with a static supply, like famous pieces of art or Manhattan real estate. But all that new wealth out there bidding against you also represents new wealth out there available for purchase, driving costs down. Under a stable currency, increasing wealth and productivity leads to steadily falling prices for most goods. This means that other people getting richer can actually benefit you even if you don't. But this process is swamped by monetary inflation. Lots of people look only at nominal price levels and conclude that inflation hasn't been bad. But when you consider the major productivity gains of the past decades, we should have been seeing falling prices. The real inflation is the difference between these, and it's big, and it makes it harder and harder for the poor to stay above water.
vannevar 15y ago
I'm so sick of people who think that wealth is a zero sum game. It, unequivocally, is not. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game for income disparity to be a problem. GDP typically grows at less than 5% a year, yet average income for the top 1% has grown at 10% annually over the last 20 years (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/what-does-economic-growth-mean-for-americans/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/what-does-econo...).
- Gormo 15y ago
  But, to viggity's point, what does the rate of increase of the average income of the top 1% of earners have to do with people who aren't in the top 1% of earners? If you agree that it isn't a zero-sum game, how does one party being better off imply that some other party is worse off?
  - scarmig 15y ago
    Because if we can have a world where that growth is more equitably distributed, you can avoid wage stagnation among the median worker? The marginal utility of a dollar is much greater for those making $50,000 a year than the person making $50,000,000 a year. It's not a sickness itself, but it's a symptom of the sickness. And pointing out that inequality has radically increased in the past decades is just pointing out we have a fever of 105F going on, here. Dumping someone in the snow won't fix it, but you also don't just ignore it and say that administering medicine would be violating a free market.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
    Then I will posit this: There is a maximum amount of US dollars in the world at any one time we measure it. We shall call this A. The wealthy 1% own .1A . That leaves, by simple averages that 99% can only have .9A . US Dollars are being made at X per hour. This 'wealth generation' devalues the preexisting currency forcing money to follow this formula A => A+X The value that A was before is now what A+X has to be. Anybody who owned A before wealth 'generation' now owns less. Yes, I would call our system zero-sum for increasingly small amounts of capital. It is only when you can bypass the marginilization of X is it not zero sum.
nitid_name 15y ago
Some methods of wealth creation are positive sum games, like a free market trade between two parties that enriches both. Some are negative sum, like "rent seeking" behaviors. The problem is that the positive sum creators (e.g. Warren Buffet) aren't as many as the negative sum players (e.g. George Soros).
AlisdairO 15y ago
Any resource in which more cannot be elastically created by the application of more money is a zero-sum game, or close to it. Land is one obvious example. edit: Political power might be considered another - at least up until the point when you cause people to riot.
- Gormo 15y ago
  I'm not sure that land fits the bill. Land can be created, especially if you define land as physical space suitable for human habitation and productivity: technological improvements that render formerly uninhabitable terrain useful can be construed as 'creating' land. Seasteading and space colonization will eventually begin 'creating' land in this fashion. Technological improvements that allow progressively smaller amounts of physical space to maintain a constant amount of productivity also have a similar effect. Even in the most literal sense, physical terrain can be created; the Dutch are pretty good at turning sea into land, and in the very distant future, we may be able even to construct entire planets out of dust and debris. Maybe the supply of matter and energy with which to do these things is a zero-sum game, but not likely one we'll have to worry about any time soon.
  - AlisdairO 15y ago
    Very interesting point - although the point stands in general. The game is, if not zero sum, then close to. The amount of land we can own does not rise in a remotely commensurate fashion with a society's wealth, because methods of creating land (particularly in crowded countries like my own) are extraordinarily expensive.

by viggity 15y ago

akie 15y ago

He's not saying that it's a zero sum game. He is not denying economic realities, he is not denying the right for people to be rich, or to become rich, or to aspire to become rich. He's just saying that a small amount of people helped themselves to a (too) large piece of the pie, and he tries to understand how we got there and whether or not this is a bad thing.

Roybatty 15y ago
He might have not said that it's a zero sum game, but you effectively did - "He's just saying that a small amount of people helped themselves to a (too) large piece of the pie"....pie being the keyword here
viggity 15y ago
who cares what percentage of the pie someone has, it matters how big the pie is. Suggesting or alluding to redistribution of wealth will inevitably shrink the overall size of the pie.
- locopati 15y ago
  So if a small group of people have all the pie, but that pie is enormous, that's great? Even if you are not in that group and will never have a chance to come near the group, except perhaps, if you're lucky, as a pie server or perhaps one who cleans up after the pie party?
- _delirium 15y ago
  I think it actually significantly matters at the extremes; having a large proportion of a country's wealth gives you significant relative power in that country's society, and so very clumpy wealth distributions produce more unstable, top-heavy societies and economies. I don't have much problem with moderate or even fairly large levels of inequality, but stuff like a small number of people controlling 20-30% of a country's resources tends to make the whole thing teeter a bit. I disagree with your last statement, and in general think the opposite is true; extremely large concentrations of wealth, of the kind seen in aristocratic or oligarchical societies, tend to shrink the size of the pie. A main question would be where the transition point is; I think the U.S. is probably still on the reasonably-good side of the line, though less comfortably so than it was in the 1950s-80s. There's very little (no?) evidence that modest levels of wealth distribution harm economic growth, either. A Soviet command economy, yes, but a social safety net in a market economy doesn't equal communism, and there's some modest evidence that it can actually improve entrepreneurship (because people end up less scared of leaving cushy corporate jobs).
- ClHans 15y ago
  One quick aside: all taxes redistribute wealth, and the consequences of doing so are well-known and positive. There's simply nothing wrong with the "redistribution of wealth" as you seem to suggest. Now, onto the larger point. We care because unequal societies have a whole host of social ills: higher crime, lower social mobility, poorer health outcomes. There is, in fact, a wide and deep body of scientific literature about this. You are, of course, free to disagree with the science on income inequality, but that places the burden on you to say, "the science is wrong!", or to say, "high crime and poor health doesn't matter!" Good luck with that.
  - ClHans 15y ago
    Downvoted for what? For pointing out that all taxes redistribute wealth, and with this redistributed wealth we buy roads, food safety, police and fire, public education, a largely functioning justice system, and in fact the safety and security of a generally-free market...in another word...civilization? Or downvoted for pointing out that the observable evidence suggests that we, as a society, would be better off in a number of measurable ways (e.g. reduced crime rates, greater social mobility, better overall health), in a society with greater money equality? It may be a challenging idea if all one's ever heard is, "don't take my slice, just grow the pie," but there is, unfortunately, no evidence--historical or contemporary--that "just grow the pie" actually works in the real world.
    - functionoid 15y ago
      Do rich people use more roads, public education, food safety? What is your point in making rich people pay more for these services other than they worked hard for their money and you want to take a free ride?
      - ClHans 15y ago
        Whether rich people use roads, public education, or food safety is beside the point. (And, frankly speaking, I'd venture to guess that rich people do use roads more, because poor people are more likely to ride the bus or walk.) They pay more because, if we taxed everyone at the same rate, we wouldn't have anywhere near enough money we needed to maintain even the somewhat shoddy state of civilization in the country. You may not like the idea that the government has to pay for all of the things it does, and that's a fair response, but it doesn't really address the bigger picture: what kind of quality of life do we want in this country? Just to play into the "low taxes for all" thought experiment, say we slash taxes across the board and have to cut a ton of stuff from our budget. Well, I can think of what I'd cut, and I'm sure you can do the same, and I'd bet there's some overlap, and some contention. But how would these cuts make life harder for your average American (who, mind you, is poor and sick and works their ass off week after week for very little wages)? If we don't care about them--if we throw them to the wolves of fate--is this the kind of country we want to live in, one we will take pride in? How would history view us, at the dawn of the 21st century? And, to be wise students of history, and reflect on how we got here, rather than assume our forebears were idiots who didn't know what they were doing, why do we have the regulations on business that we do? Why do we have food safety? Why do we have regulations on overtime pay? (And whose bright idea was it to exempt IT workers from that?) Why do we have regulations on medicine, or laws that dictate how and where we drive our cars? I'm not trying to ask a bunch of leading questions. I don't have the answers here. I just think it's useful to think more broadly than "a flat tax is a fair tax is a just tax is the right thing to do", both historically and ethically. enjoy,
- ArtB 15y ago
  My problem is that interpersonal conflicts are strongly effected by wealth. Someone who can afford lots of lawyers have a much greater chance of winning than someone who can barely afford one. Often people settle just to avoid crippling legal costs. Also people with greater wealth can use that money to promote their ideas and persuade other to their positions. They can afford their children much better opportunities. Not to mention that greater wealth disparities encourage keeping-up-with-the-Joneses arms races and other social ills. I honestly suspect that shrinking the pie but making it more evenly distributed would be best for all for the increased social harmony and stability.
  - ClHans 15y ago
    You don't need to suspect it. You can read the social science literature and have some confidence that hard-working researchers have confirmed your suspicion. Here's a good place to start: Income Inequality and Social Dysfunction by Wilkerson and Pickett.
    - ClHans 15y ago
      I assume someone downvoted me for the typo (sorry! the name is supposed to be Wilkinson), and not because they find it uncomfortable when science supports ideas that run counter to their own. Here's another good resource, this time from Stanford - http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/ http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/ enjoy!
- Gormo 15y ago
  What is this 'pie'? The analogy seems to imply that there's some pre-existing pool of wealth from which people draw shares of varying size, and I'm fairly sure that nothing like this exists in reality. Wealth doesn't originate in some pre-defined aggregation; it's generated by particular people in particular contexts. This concept of different people having different 'shares' of wealth relies on starting with some universal aggregation, and this always seems to be measured by calculating everyone's separate individual income and adding each of these values to into a single sum. But this implicitly acknowledges that wealth doesn't originate in an aggregation, so what's the justification for construing any aggregation at all?
tomjen3 15y ago
Bull. The moment you involve the economic pie, you say it is zero sum. We may call this the pie falicy. Think of it not as one pie, but as trillions of pies. You get one by buying one or trading others for their pies. Under this model, what right do you have to your neighbors pie.
- ajross 15y ago
  Who made it your neighbor's pie? Income inequality is driven by public policy (tax rates, mostly). High income tax brackets used to be higher, now they're lower. And they've produced easily detectable changes in income inequality. That's not a fundamental issue of property rights, it's just the way democracy works. That some people favor the policy and results that held from 1950-1970 doesn't make them communists. You agree, right? Your last sentence is just a Randian fantasy strawman. No one is talking about going into your bank account and taking money out. But certainly people are talking about tax policy, which changes every few years anyway. Are you interested in having a mature discussion about tax policy?
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    "No one is talking about going into your bank account and taking money out" My place of employment deposit my salary directly into my bank account, sans taxes. Are you saying that there is a material difference between taking the money before they end up in my bank account (i.e I never see them) or after (e.g. I have to write a check to the government each month)?

capisce 15y ago

Economic inequality hurts societies: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

jbooth 15y ago

Of course it's not a zero-sum game. We're a consumer economy. If the bottom 90% are having trouble paying their bills and don't buy as much stuff, the top 10% are going to feel the slowdown eventually. Think of it as your rational self-interest. As a matter of fact, you know that graph in the linked article, how it shoes that inequality was way lower from 1941-1979? Guess which period of the 20th century had the highest GDP growth. BTW, Bill Gates was in favor of a higher income tax in WA last time it came up, and as we all know is in the process of giving all his money away.

bhousel 15y ago
I'm not convinced that the top 10% sell things to the bottom 90%. We may have a situation where the different wealth brackets operate their own economies that really don't have much to do with each other. (I do agree with your main point that wealth creation isn't a zero sum game, which should be obvious to anyone by now).
- jbooth 15y ago
  Different wealth brackets operating in their own economies, what? The guy who picks your oranges drives a lexus? Yeah, you're working for rich people, but somewhere along the line those people are making money by selling to people who work from a living. Personally, my software buys advertising on exchanges to sell to agencies who are acting for large companies who have subsidiaries who sell things to people who work for a living. It's just a question of how many degrees.
philwelch 15y ago
Different Bill Gates. The income tax advocate is Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates the software magnate.
- jbooth 15y ago
  WSJ has him for it via a "source": http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/21/does-bill-gates-support-new-income-tax-for-wealthy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/21/does-bill-gates-suppo... He's strongly and unambiguously in favor of the estate tax: http://www.trustsestateslaw.com/2009/05/warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-on-the-estate-tax/ http://www.trustsestateslaw.com/2009/05/warren-buffett-and-b...

onemoreact 15y ago

For every Bill Gates there are many people who got rich by extracting a larger piece of the pie vs making the pie larger. Consider 401k's where designed not to maximize retirement income for middle class Americans they where setup so the companies that administer them could extract the largest possible slice of someone other persons pie. Over the lifetime of many plans they extract 20%-50% of all gains though direct and indirect fees. The SSA could administer the same program for literally 1/5th what people are being charged. Many housing developers get rich not from building houses, but buying land and then rezoning it to be worth more and then building houses. Effectively they leverage an areas existing infrastructure to increase the value of that land without paying for it. And often the way the do this is though direct and indirect bribery of local politicians. From this perspective the idea of zoning is simply a way for the well connected to make money. If instead you charged people for their share of the construction costs of existing roads, schools, bridges etc when they added a new single family home you could automatically pay for any needed upgrades rather than having existing homeowners subsides their infrastructure either by having already paid for it or sharing in the cost of building new infrastructure to support new immigrants. Edit: Of course when you start to dig into things Bill Gates also leveraged his connections to make most of his money. The reason he could sell an operating system he did not have to IBM vs them dealing with the guy that created it has everything to do with his connections and nothing to do with him actually building anything. PS: Often people get rich by doing both. They make a the pie slightly larger yet end up with a larger piece than the size of their increase. I would argue that the best way to separate the wheat from the chaff in this case is a direct tax on wealth say 1.5% per year on anything over 2 million instead of traditional capital gains. While it does little to those who are directly making money it drains the type of passive old boy networks that most damaging to economic growth.

IanDrake 15y ago
>The SSA could administer the same program for literally 1/5th what people are being charged. Most people aren't begging the SSA to manage their money on the cheap, so there must be some kind of benefit with those more expensive options. However, if you really think the SSA could do better with your money, I know someone who works there and could ask them where you can over send them more of your money.

locopati 15y ago

Are you denying that wealth has a gravitational effect towards wealth (i.e. it concentrates it) and that effect, when taken too far, has a negative effect on the society in which it occurs? There are plenty of examples from history (distant and recent) and plenty of studies to support the point. A broader based of wealth occurs when a society is balanced not solely because of the supreme talents of an individual. You could have all the talent in the world but if the infrastructure is falling apart, the educational system is struggling, and there aren't people who earn enough to purchase your goods, what good will it do you?

maratd 15y ago
> Are you denying that wealth has a gravitational effect towards wealth Money begets more money, certainly. > when taken too far, has a negative effect on the society in which it occurs? This isn't possible. A person can either spend money or store money. When they spend money, they are telling others to perform work. That money then gets transferred to other people. When they store money, that money gets placed in a bank or in an investment. In a bank, that money is immediately loaned out to someone else, creating a business or some venture, creating jobs and wealth for other people. In an investment, again, jobs are created and wealth for others is formed. Now, can all of this run in a closed loop among the privileged? Only in a society with heavy government intervention where the market is warped. In a healthy free economy, talented people are quickly recognized and quickly brought into the loop. In an unhealthy controlled economy, you must know the right people to be allowed into the loop and the people allowed into the loop are rarely talented. > A broader based of wealth occurs when a society is balanced not solely because of the supreme talents of an individual. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? History has already condemned your way of thinking.
- vannevar 15y ago
  In a healthy free economy, talented people are quickly recognized and quickly brought into the loop. In an unhealthy controlled economy, you must know the right people to be allowed into the loop and the people allowed into the loop are rarely talented. The human tendency toward cronyism is universal. One could just as persuasively argue that FTC regulations and 'market-warping' affirmative action have made the economy healthier and freer for all.

diogenescynic 15y ago

Since we live in a society of auction markets, the more money other people have, in effect, the less you have.

ef4 15y ago
That's true for things with a static supply, like famous pieces of art or Manhattan real estate. But all that new wealth out there bidding against you also represents new wealth out there available for purchase, driving costs down. Under a stable currency, increasing wealth and productivity leads to steadily falling prices for most goods. This means that other people getting richer can actually benefit you even if you don't. But this process is swamped by monetary inflation. Lots of people look only at nominal price levels and conclude that inflation hasn't been bad. But when you consider the major productivity gains of the past decades, we should have been seeing falling prices. The real inflation is the difference between these, and it's big, and it makes it harder and harder for the poor to stay above water.

vannevar 15y ago

I'm so sick of people who think that wealth is a zero sum game. It, unequivocally, is not. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game for income disparity to be a problem. GDP typically grows at less than 5% a year, yet average income for the top 1% has grown at 10% annually over the last 20 years (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/what-does-economic-growth-mean-for-americans/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/what-does-econo...).

Gormo 15y ago
But, to viggity's point, what does the rate of increase of the average income of the top 1% of earners have to do with people who aren't in the top 1% of earners? If you agree that it isn't a zero-sum game, how does one party being better off imply that some other party is worse off?
- scarmig 15y ago
  Because if we can have a world where that growth is more equitably distributed, you can avoid wage stagnation among the median worker? The marginal utility of a dollar is much greater for those making $50,000 a year than the person making $50,000,000 a year. It's not a sickness itself, but it's a symptom of the sickness. And pointing out that inequality has radically increased in the past decades is just pointing out we have a fever of 105F going on, here. Dumping someone in the snow won't fix it, but you also don't just ignore it and say that administering medicine would be violating a free market.
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  Then I will posit this: There is a maximum amount of US dollars in the world at any one time we measure it. We shall call this A. The wealthy 1% own .1A . That leaves, by simple averages that 99% can only have .9A . US Dollars are being made at X per hour. This 'wealth generation' devalues the preexisting currency forcing money to follow this formula A => A+X The value that A was before is now what A+X has to be. Anybody who owned A before wealth 'generation' now owns less. Yes, I would call our system zero-sum for increasingly small amounts of capital. It is only when you can bypass the marginilization of X is it not zero sum.

nitid_name 15y ago

Some methods of wealth creation are positive sum games, like a free market trade between two parties that enriches both. Some are negative sum, like "rent seeking" behaviors. The problem is that the positive sum creators (e.g. Warren Buffet) aren't as many as the negative sum players (e.g. George Soros).

AlisdairO 15y ago

Any resource in which more cannot be elastically created by the application of more money is a zero-sum game, or close to it. Land is one obvious example. edit: Political power might be considered another - at least up until the point when you cause people to riot.

Gormo 15y ago
I'm not sure that land fits the bill. Land can be created, especially if you define land as physical space suitable for human habitation and productivity: technological improvements that render formerly uninhabitable terrain useful can be construed as 'creating' land. Seasteading and space colonization will eventually begin 'creating' land in this fashion. Technological improvements that allow progressively smaller amounts of physical space to maintain a constant amount of productivity also have a similar effect. Even in the most literal sense, physical terrain can be created; the Dutch are pretty good at turning sea into land, and in the very distant future, we may be able even to construct entire planets out of dust and debris. Maybe the supply of matter and energy with which to do these things is a zero-sum game, but not likely one we'll have to worry about any time soon.
- AlisdairO 15y ago
  Very interesting point - although the point stands in general. The game is, if not zero sum, then close to. The amount of land we can own does not rise in a remotely commensurate fashion with a society's wealth, because methods of creating land (particularly in crowded countries like my own) are extraordinarily expensive.