CASH FOR VOTES

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Didn't say anyone ever called for such policy. The "context" (to put it in Spencerian terms) that I mention subsistance level, is securing a better life for one's children as ONE of the greatest motivations to work beyond that level. I neither stated nor implied that there are no other motivating factors. My response, after all, was about those (children) being born into wealth not being winners of a lottery.

I think that's more valid from the top down but less so from the bottom up. As far as the kids are concerned one has opportunity that the other doesn't.

And, BTW, there have ever been policies that thwarted the desire to work beyond subsistence by crushing that desire. Slavery abounded in the past and still exists now, slavery much more crushing than the American form. And not too long before China's current attempt to introduce capitalism into its society, they had a strict subsistence level instituted for all but communist party higher ups. I had a Chinese-American friend who visited the mainland about 30 years ago and saw a system in which everyone was paid $80/mo regardles of occupation, and they could not move from the locality they were born in unless their profession was in short supply elsewhere such as a doctor.

Your use of slavery is a bit inflammatory no? I don't know of anyone in present day America who feels they are enslaved.

Who are you taking issue with here? I was, again, speaking about the INHERITORS of wealth, not the parents who created that wealth, however they got it. And I would state your double negative in its absolute positive--talent, effort, and risk taking DO increase the chances to get lucky, and without those qualities, in most cases, luck will pass you by. And if luck is always involved to some degree, then it is an unavoidable constant that we all have to deal with. And dealing with it by applying effort and risk taking is the surest way to succeed. By far, the greatest factor in success is the effort to apply talent, will, perseverance, against all risks. And, let's not forget, failure is more abundant than success, so the willingness to make the effort and take the risk deserves far more credit than the fickle luck we are all prone to.

There was no double negative, I completely agree that talent and effort increase the chances to get lucky or exploit that luck. But let's say you had two kids with equal talent and both were raised to be hard workers. The one lucky enough to have been born into a family with means is going to have a far better chance at success vs one who was not.

What's your point here? Are entrepeneurs separate from those who sacrifice throughout society to defend our freedoms, who labor, who work endless hours (and yes, many work on a small dime in the beginning)? And are they any more "impotent" than those who depend on them to provide the labor and create opportunities for economic freedom from the poverty seen in societies bereft of entrepeneurs? They are not merely a "critical component" of our "economy," they are its creator.

The point is that economics -- as you're well aware -- is about the relationship between capital and labor. Trickle up and trickle down are both valid but one doesn't work without the other...that's why I'm an economic convectionist

Ah, I get it now. Your point is just to "stir the pot" as you like to say. Your smart and crafty enough to know that trope "on the backs of others" is meant to be inflammatory, a call to decry those wealthy s.o.b.'s. How about "the backs of others" depends on the "brains and effort of others" for sustenance?

Not at all, I just find a discussion about entrepreneurs without the inclusion of those actually doing most of the work to be incomplete.

As for stirring the pot, I do make a mean risotto

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think that's more valid from the top down but less so from the bottom up. As far as the kids are concerned one has opportunity that the other doesn't.

Your top down/bottom up is confusing here. Do you mean top being parents and bottom being children? If so, OF COURSE top down is more valid--the kids are usually not going to strive harder to secure the parents future, it's obviously usually the other way around. If you mean top being wealthy and bottom being poor--I said to secure the children's future is ONE . . .ONE . . .ONE of the greatest motivations to rise above subsistance level. In the case of poor vs wealthy, is that also not one of those motivations for both once they achieve subsistance level? And if it is "more valid" for the wealthy, a lot of things are more valid for the wealthy. Why bother to become more wealthy if it does no more for you than being poor? And if poor kids have less opportunity than wealthy kids, isn't that, exactly, one of the reasons to become wealthy? What is it that you wish here? Abolish wealth so that everyone has the same opportunity to gain it? Does that make sense?

Your use of slavery is a bit inflammatory no? I don't know of anyone in present day America who feels they are enslaved.

It was a valid response of actual policy to your claiming that no-one ever called for a policy to remove the desire to rise above subsistence level. Your use of "on the backs of" is a trope used to invoke favor in an argument against the wealthy, or the "owners" and such. When it likens economic relationships in the free market between employees and employers to a slave like condition, that is not valid.

There was no double negative, I completely agree that talent and effort increase the chances to get lucky or exploit that luck. But let's say you had two kids with equal talent and both were raised to be hard workers. The one lucky enough to have been born into a family with means is going to have a far better chance at success vs one who was not.

"That's not to say . . . doesn't" I believe, is a double negative, maybe I'm wrong, no big deal. One of the reasons to gain wealth is to secure the future of your children. You insist that such children are "lucky" to be born to such parents. Never mind that those parents, in most cases, had intended to have children, and in most cases worked intentionally to gain wealth, and in most cases they secured their childrens "better chance" at success with that wealth. Isn't that the point? Isn't that one of the reasons to acquire wealth? Are luck and intention equal? Perhaps the children born to poorer parents are benefitting from the "luck" that was fostered by the lesser talent, effort, inelligence, of their parents? What are we supposed to do, inject all babies with some equalizing chemical so that they all tap into luck equally by striving with the same intelligence and effort and thus all leaving all their children with equal opportunities?

The point is that economics -- as you're well aware -- is about the relationship between capital and labor. Trickle up and trickle down are both valid but one doesn't work without the other...that's why I'm an economic convectionist

Well, economics is about more than the relationship between capital and labor. It is about the total relaltionship between all elements in a society which include beliefs, attitudes, talents, intelligence, MOTIVATION, and everything you can think of. A harmonious relationship between all elements is a utopian desire that would end the necessisty to further evolve. Since that harmony is likely impossible, we do evolve. But those that wish to artificially create this utopia rather than letting it naturally evolve, wish to do so by equalizing conditions. In which case convections trickling up and/or down will be eliminated. If you wish to have your convectionist economy, then accept that there will be an up and a down, and the up will have more opportunity, this being the reason to strive to get up.

Not at all, I just find a discussion about entrepreneurs without the inclusion of those actually doing most of the work to be incomplete. As for stirring the pot, I do make a mean risotto -spence

There is work and there is work. Most business owners work more at their business than there employees. But we, somehow, don't look at their work as work.

Good looking risotto. You have a lucky wife and children.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your top down/bottom up is confusing here. Do you mean top being parents and bottom being children? If so, OF COURSE top down is more valid--the kids are usually not going to strive harder to secure the parents future, it's obviously usually the other way around. If you mean top being wealthy and bottom being poor--I said to secure the children's future is ONE . . .ONE . . .ONE of the greatest motivations to rise above subsistance level. In the case of poor vs wealthy, is that also not one of those motivations for both once they achieve subsistance level? And if it is "more valid" for the wealthy, a lot of things are more valid for the wealthy. Why bother to become more wealthy if it does no more for you than being poor? And if poor kids have less opportunity than wealthy kids, isn't that, exactly, one of the reasons to become wealthy? What is it that you wish here? Abolish wealth so that everyone has the same opportunity to gain it? Does that make sense?

Nobody, even Obama, is calling for the abolition of wealth. But doesn't that rich kid, even if he has a silver spoon in his mouth still have a far greater chance at success than the poor kid raised with a work ethic?

I think this question is relevant when thinking about what constitutes one's tribe. The implication here should be obvious.

It was a valid response of actual policy to your claiming that no-one ever called for a policy to remove the desire to rise above subsistence level. Your use of "on the backs of" is a trope used to invoke favor in an argument against the wealthy, or the "owners" and such. When it likens economic relationships in the free market between employees and employers to a slave like condition, that is not valid.

Trope, nice, I haven't heard that word used in a while

I often visualize pyramids when describing an organizational structure. You'd got to stand on the back of something or else the whole thing falls down...

One of the reasons to gain wealth is to secure the future of your children. You insist that such children are "lucky" to be born to such parents. Never mind that those parents, in most cases, had intended to have children, and in most cases worked intentionally to gain wealth, and in most cases they secured their childrens "better chance" at success with that wealth. Isn't that the point? Isn't that one of the reasons to acquire wealth? Are luck and intention equal? Perhaps the children born to poorer parents are benefitting from the "luck" that was fostered by the lesser talent, effort, inelligence, of their parents? What are we supposed to do, inject all babies with some equalizing chemical so that they all tap into luck equally by striving with the same intelligence and effort and thus all leaving all their children with equal opportunities?

How often are successful parents trying to capture wealth for their offspring also the result of wealthy parents to begin with?

Even my father commented about this over Christmas, how luck my son was to have access to computers and good education to give him a developmental edge. That on top of being smarter and better looking to begin with

Certainly one element that makes America different from most countries is that there are fewer cultural barriers to moving up...and this is a super positive for sure. But it's also undeniable that the top few % hold most of the wealth...and couldn't keep it if it were not for the efforts of everyone else.

Well, economics is about more than the relationship between capital and labor. It is about the total relaltionship between all elements in a society which include beliefs, attitudes, talents, intelligence, MOTIVATION, and everything you can think of. A harmonious relationship between all elements is a utopian desire that would end the necessisty to further evolve. Since that harmony is likely impossible, we do evolve. But those that wish to artificially create this utopia rather than letting it naturally evolve, wish to do so by equalizing conditions. In which case convections trickling up and/or down will be eliminated. If you wish to have your convectionist economy, then accept that there will be an up and a down, and the up will have more opportunity, this being the reason to strive to get up.

Just trying to keep things simple. My point is that without balance (oh god, here I go again) we could quickly reach an asymmetrical state that would be disasterous. Personally I think if you were to move too far towards a real free market system (regardless of federal or state regulatory allocation) the wealthy would eat up everything very rapidly. Certainly the inverse is also true...

There is work and there is work. Most business owners work more at their business than there employees. But we, somehow, don't look at their work as work.

The often cited statistic on executive pay as a % of worker pay is relevant here. Have CEO's become more important than those who actually product goods and services?

Good looking risotto. You have a lucky wife and children.

Thanks, I think it's important to take pleasure in the basics of living...like eating

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Nobody, even Obama, is calling for the abolition of wealth. But doesn't that rich kid, even if he has a silver spoon in his mouth still have a far greater chance at success than the poor kid raised with a work ethic?

We're starting to talk in circles here, which may be a sign that we don't disagree on what is, but possibly, on what should be. It's a tautology to say that having an advantage gives you an advantage. I know you keep reiterating that, and I agree, but so what? I say that it is a condition that is to a great degree pre-determined by the intentional efforts of forbears, and a condition that they desired. It is the type of outcome that motivates those who believe in and practice, "take advantage," of a free market. I believe it is a correct and motivating process in that market. The ownership and protection of property is one of the most important reasons for the creation of this country and its Constitution. You keep hinting at something being wrong with this. But you won't name it, nor say what should be done to correct it.

I think this question is relevant when thinking about what constitutes one's tribe. The implication here should be obvious.

We may well agree, but you'll have to be more explicit as my mind is stuck in my own thoughts and not able to see what the obvious implication is. And I hope there is more than an implication here.


I often visualize pyramids when describing an organizational structure. You'd got to stand on the back of something or else the whole thing falls down...

I apologize for misconstruing your intent. I have heard this "stand on the back of" phrase used so often by various leftist groups to imply harsh and usurious ways of treating "labor" as if it were, in some slave-like way, being taken advantage of. That you were merely referring to a pyramid escaped me. But aren't pyramid structures composed intentionally by a director for a purpose? The bottom layers don't, generally create or direct the pyramid. Without the creator of the pyramid, there is no use for it, and the number of layers is at the behest of the director. The final structure is totally interdependent, without the top or middle layers, there is no need of the bottom. In effect all layers are standing on each other, for if one part or layer collapses the whole structure is defunct.

How often are successful parents trying to capture wealth for their offspring also the result of wealthy parents to begin with?

I don't know how often as compared to how often its a first generation thing, but it's all part of a lineage. I'm sure that grandparents, and great grandparents, etc., who started it are content to see there progeny continue to succeed, and are glad to have played no small part in that success.

Even my father commented about this over Christmas, how luck my son was to have access to computers and good education to give him a developmental edge. That on top of being smarter and better looking to begin with

You're father, like you, you smart good looking guy you, is being too modest. I would give more credit to what he gave you and what you gave your son in terms of what society has to offer as a result of the progress made by those who strove. I give more credit to all those before us who had the ambitions, motivations, and creativity, combined with the freedom to apply those things and the efforts of you and your parents to take advantage of it all, than I do to luck.

Certainly one element that makes America different from most countries is that there are fewer cultural barriers to moving up...and this is a super positive for sure. But it's also undeniable that the top few % hold most of the wealth...and couldn't keep it if it were not for the efforts of everyone else.

And . . .?

Just trying to keep things simple. My point is that without balance (oh god, here I go again) we could quickly reach an asymmetrical state that would be disasterous. Personally I think if you were to move too far towards a real free market system (regardless of federal or state regulatory allocation) the wealthy would eat up everything very rapidly. Certainly the inverse is also true...

That is the only real objection that Marx had to capitalism. If it is the "vector" (there I go again for you) that is inevitable, then capitalism, free markets, are a problem. Actually, I think that as that type of concentrated wealth is approached, the wealth loses its value. At that point, labor, motivation, markets, would all come to a stop. The corrections would take place before that could happen. Plus, its an imaginary scenario that doesn't take into account the desires, motivations, and humanity of the wealthy. It makes monsters of them. Unless they are scrooge-like megalomaniacal money worshippers, they could not live in such a world either.

The often cited statistic on executive pay as a % of worker pay is relevant here. Have CEO's become more important than those who actually product goods and services?

I am not a fan of the massive amounts that some are paid (or which they confiscate). But I think that is not true free market in which there is an exchange of value in which all sides are satisfied. I believe that is a manifest corruption, not capitalism nor free market.

Thanks, I think it's important to take pleasure in the basics of living...like eating

-spence

Life is good. Let us freely strive to live it well.