4 ms·

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 th

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.
  - maratd 15y ago
    > The human tendency toward cronyism is universal. It is. However, it seems to be at the greatest magnitude in large structures. Whether those large structures are governments or corporations is irrelevant. Keeping things small is the best recipe for equity, not grand schemes of redistribution.
    - vannevar 15y ago
      I'd agree with this, but very few others on either side of the political spectrum acknowledge it. In the absence of reform to check unbridled corporate growth, we're left with the choice of 'grand schemes' or nothing, and history suggests inaction would be worse.
- Hyena 15y ago
  <I>This isn't possible. A person can either spend money or store money.</I> This isn't quite accurate. You note later how markets work, but you're not seeing how much that's in tension with wealth concentration. At its furthest end, you simply have a private person in charge of a command economy. Look at countries considered "kleptocratic": most aren't klepto- anything, they literally possess most of the wealth and thereby direct development towards their families in a sort of feudal way. Most could probably forgo formal taxation altogether and my impression of compliance is that they essentially do.

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.
- maratd 15y ago
  > The human tendency toward cronyism is universal. It is. However, it seems to be at the greatest magnitude in large structures. Whether those large structures are governments or corporations is irrelevant. Keeping things small is the best recipe for equity, not grand schemes of redistribution.
  - vannevar 15y ago
    I'd agree with this, but very few others on either side of the political spectrum acknowledge it. In the absence of reform to check unbridled corporate growth, we're left with the choice of 'grand schemes' or nothing, and history suggests inaction would be worse.
Hyena 15y ago
<I>This isn't possible. A person can either spend money or store money.</I> This isn't quite accurate. You note later how markets work, but you're not seeing how much that's in tension with wealth concentration. At its furthest end, you simply have a private person in charge of a command economy. Look at countries considered "kleptocratic": most aren't klepto- anything, they literally possess most of the wealth and thereby direct development towards their families in a sort of feudal way. Most could probably forgo formal taxation altogether and my impression of compliance is that they essentially do.