Poor rich people

[borderpolice]

Some take it off-shore (I think Bono does), but like I said, in the US (for e.g.) the top 20 percent of income earners pay 80 percent of total federal income taxes. The rich pay a lot of tax already.

I don't believe these figures. More precisely, i don't believe that 20% of the US population account for 80% of the individual taxes. I don't know exactly how federal and state taxes break up there.

But that's bad on a moral level and bad on an economic level.

This would be because you say so?

Scandanavian economies are hardly what I would call "powerful". As I think I've already noted, if Sweden were a US state, it would be the poorest in the Union. If it were an ethnic group in the US, it would be at the very bottom.

Having lived in scandinavia and the US, I don't believe these figures.

Not so - no one needs to fight to survive. We have a labour shortage due to our aging populations. There is plenty of work for those that want it.

I was thinking of third world countries which are the closest approximation to the libertarian ideal that we have.

The Mystery of Capital

A link to amazon is not an argument.

 

[vimothy]

Hence what you are saying really is this: What people deserve is what "the intersection of supply and demand" pays them. So you in effect equate one's due with one's factual income, aka Norms = facts.

Ok so there are two ways of deciding a particular job's monetary worth:
Government fiat
The intersection of supply and demand curves

Why should "the intersection of supply and demand" give a good or even reasonable criterion for what somebody should earn?

You can't seriously mean that.

Moreover, when you say: "the market would give a fairer valuation than the government, based on the intersection of supply and demand" then you are stipulating an objective criterion of fairness otherwise you would not be able to say that the market is fairer than whatever else you have in mind. so what is this objective criterion according to which the market makes these fairer decisions?

Fairer by definition, because the government guesses, whereas the market reflects the countless pushes and pulls of society.

 

[vimothy]

I don't believe these figures. More precisely, i don't believe that 20% of the US population account for 80% of the individual taxes. I don't know exactly how federal and state taxes break up there.

Don't make it so, tho: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams090804.asp

This would be because you say so?

It's bad on a moral level because the wage you earn should reflect how useful and/or important your job is, how difficult and how specialised.

It's bad on an economic level because we know how badly attempts to share wealth have gone in the last century - and I'm not even talking about anything other than economic growth and sustainability - and because there is a strong correlation between economic freedom and GDP.

Having lived in scandinavia and the US, I don't believe these figures.

Because you say so? Here's the link, anyway.

I was thinking of third world countries which are the closest approximation to the libertarian ideal that we have.

That's completely untrue. I don't know why you would even think that, frankly. Can you explain that to me, please?

A link to amazon is not an argument.

No, but I am trying to get some work done. I linked to a very famous and well respected work by a Peruvian economist who set out to try to answer exactly that question. If you are interested you can easily read up on some of his stuff on the internet. I recommend him to everyone actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_(economist)

 

[borderpolice]

Fairer by definition, because the government guesses, whereas the market reflects the countless pushes and pulls of society.

According to which definition of fairness?

The market reflects the preferences of the most powerful.

the (democratic) government -- at least in theory -- represents some kind of average over the whole population.

 

[borderpolice]

Don't make it so, tho: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams090804.asp

I don't see how dodgy blogs are trustworthy sources.

It's bad on a moral level because the wage you earn should reflect how useful and/or important your job is, how difficult and how specialised.

and why should the free market be able to reflect this?

and because there is a strong correlation between economic freedom and GDP.

Yes, i agree, the most free economies, those in the poor third world, are also having the lowest GDP, whereas huge statemanaged economies like that of the US (just look at the size of the US research and defense budget), doing comparatively better.

Because you say so? Here's the link, anyway.

I said i don't believe these figures, based on my experiences. what's wrong with that? I'm happy to be proven wrong, with good data. Dodgy blog links don't count as good data.

That's completely untrue. I don't know why you would even think that, frankly. Can you explain that to me, please?

The poor in the third world don't get social benefits to speak of. The rich have almost unlimited economic freedom, since they have almost unlimited access to power. That's fairly undeniable. According to libertarian theory, these contries should thrive the most. they dont', hence ...

No, but I am trying to get some work done.

So am I.

I linked to a very famous and well respected work by a Peruvian economist

Well respected? from the wikipedia article: "De Soto was Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori's personal representative" . Fukimori instituted a forced sterilisation programme for the poor. As his personal representative, did De Soto know about it?

 

[ripley]

some of that "freedom" is freedom to die in the street because you don't have a job though.

there are trade-offs in these systems. for every story of mobility, there are lots of stories of suffering and death due to homelessness, joblessness, lack of health insurance, etc. and it's not merit that saves you from those things - it's luck.

it's not easy to measure the costs against the benefits.

 

[vimothy]

According to which definition of fairness?

The market reflects the preferences of the most powerful.

the (democratic) government -- at least in theory -- represents some kind of average over the whole population.

No, you're either completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding the role of markets in a market economy. I'm going home now but I'll try to address this next week.

 

[IdleRich]

"And if he's not productive, then he's not productive. If however, he's constantly investing his fortune into business ventures, and in the process creating even more wealth, then he is productive."

Sorry, haven't had time to go back through the whole thread properly but it seems that here and earlier you are saying that anyone who has a large amount of money and does anything with it (puts it in a bank, drinks it and pays tax etc) is automatically productive. With that definition the original argument that rich people are more productive is circular.
Also, I still haven't seen you circle the square of how anyone with rich parents (regardless of talent) can inherit money and increase the difference between rich and poor and yet somehow this very difference is evidence of a meritocracy.

 

[vimothy]

I don't see how dodgy blogs are trustworthy sources.

Dead end

and why should the free market be able to reflect this?

see previous post

Yes, i agree, the most free economies, those in the poor third world, are also having the lowest GDP, whereas huge statemanaged economies like that of the US (just look at the size of the US research and defense budget), doing comparatively better.

Am I talking to myself? The countries in the world with the greatest levels of economic freedom are also the richest. Why do you keep mentioning the third world as though it's a paradigm example of the success of market economies?

I said i don't believe these figures, based on my experiences. what's wrong with that? I'm happy to be proven wrong, with good data. Dodgy blog links don't count as good data.

Dead end

The poor in the third world don't get social benefits to speak of. The rich have almost unlimited economic freedom, since they have almost unlimited access to power. That's fairly undeniable. According to libertarian theory, these contries should thrive the most. they dont', hence ...

What?!?!? Be serious, FFS

So am I.

Hairy muff we're both in the same boat then

Well respected? from the wikipedia article: "De Soto was Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori's personal representative" . Fukimori instituted a forced sterilisation programme for the poor. As his personal representative, did De Soto know about it?

Lame, totally lame

First off - why would De Soto have anything to do with it? You are just trying to (once again) ignore anything that doesn't fit with your world-view.

(Next & FWIW - sterilisation of the poor is an entirely Malthusian policy, reflecting a typically reactionary lack of faith in the future. Free market capitalism recognises that people are the planet's greatest and most valuable resource.)

Finally - I am going to push the boat right out on this one and say that, regardless of whether it is a bit rich for you to dismiss De Soto without knowing the first thing about him or his work, and despite even leftists like The Economist thinking that the ILD is one of the top two most important think tanks in the entire world, De Soto has done more for the developing world poor than you will ever do. And he is not finished.

For instance:

With an initial investment of $18.2 million from USAID and CIPE, ILD totally revamped Peru's property system, thus allowing its poor to acquire almost $10 billion in net benefits; i.e., an average annual return of 142% on USAID initial investment (Studies by World Bank officials, universities, and the Peruvian Government).

The ILD made major reforms that are difficult to quantify economically. For example: both the Peruvian Army Chief and the leader of the Shining Path confirm that ILD reforms crippled Peru's terrorist movement. According to Princeton University, school attendance increased by 28% where ILD carried out reforms. In El Salvador soldiers and guerrillas were absorbed into civil society using ILD property instruments (CIPE, US Chamber of Commerce Conference Report).

After ILD's reforms, 300,000 enterprises were brought into the legal sector, increasing tax revenues by $300 million a year, and generating 560,000 legal jobs in Peru and clarifying why Millennium Challenge Account's "starting new businesses" goal is inspired in ILD work.​

 

[vimothy]

Very last post!

Sorry, haven't had time to go back through the whole thread properly but it seems that here and earlier you are saying that anyone who has a large amount of money and does anything with it (puts it in a bank, drinks it and pays tax etc) is automatically productive. With that definition the original argument that rich people are more productive is circular.

If you use your money to make more money, then you are being (economically) productive, by definition. Whether you do that by investing it, saving it or whatever, and whether you earned that money sweeping roads or were given it by your aristocratic parents is beside the point.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I don't for a second buy this claim about Sweden being poorer than the poorest state in the US. Aren't the Scandinavian countries meant to have amongst the highest standards of living in the world, with state-funded education, health and other services Americans can only dream of? Where are Sweden's trailer parks and inner-city ghettos?

 

[IdleRich]

If you use your money to make more money, then you are being (economically) productive, by definition.

That's exactly my point.
You're saying that a widening gap of wealth is evidence of a meritocracy - but your definition of merit is pretty much synonymous with (or at least includes) simply having money. So under this definition it's a complete truism - the more people that have more money the more people have more money.

Just seen this bit

"Also, you need to consider the amount of tax contributed by the rich. In America, the top 20 percent of income earners pay 80 percent of total federal income taxes."

What about non-federal and/or non-income tax? I think that statistic is stated so specifically because otherwise it would paint a different picture.

 

[turtles]

Huuuge x-post, but from wikipedia:

Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization based on demonstrated ability (merit) and talent rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege, cronyism, popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.

So you can't think of any instances of people being reward economically by nepotism, or cronyism, or class privilege, in a capitalist, free-market system? None at all? Or wait, did those all occur because markets weren't free enough? Or does having rich parents and friends in high places count as a talent?

Ok so I was a bit glib back there, but I'm serious when I say it's pretty laughable to think if we lined everyone up according to how much they make, we would also have lined everyone up according to their "ability" and "talent". And please don't define "talent" as being the ability to succeed in a capitalist system, like how you've defined being "productive" as the ability to produce capital in a capitalist system. It's kinda frighteningly circular.

 

[borderpolice]

Am I talking to myself? The countries in the world with the greatest levels of economic freedom are also the richest. Why do you keep mentioning the third world as though it's a paradigm example of the success of market economies?

I keep mentioning this because countries that have the largest levels of economic freedom are among the poorest, i.e. many 3rd world countries. no state interference stops the poor fisherman in the philippines or the farmer in the arid brasilian north-east from starting enterprises. They don't. Why do you keep ignoring this fact? OTOH, the rich european, SE asian countries, the US have countless regulations for economic behaviour in place. In the EU, if you want to start a hotel, a restaurant you have to meet countless health and hygiene standards. not so in bolivia. yet, hotels in the EU are much more profitable than in bolivia.

This is in direct violation of libertarian credos.

First off - why would De Soto have anything to do with it?

You have not answered the question. Has he been involved with this or not? further question: has he been involved with the corruption scandals that Fujimori is embroiled in or not?

it is a bit rich for you to dismiss De Soto without knowing the first thing about him or his work,

I didnt dismiss him, i just asked questions ... which you didn't answer in earnest (just as you have not answered my questions regarding microsoft).

(Next & FWIW - sterilisation of the poor is an entirely Malthusian policy, reflecting a typically reactionary lack of faith in the future. Free market capitalism recognises that people are the planet's greatest and most valuable resource.)

Well why does de Soto work for a government that engages in such policies?

despite even leftists like The Economist thinking that the ILD is one of the top two most important think tanks in the entire world,

Oh the economist, that infallible dispensary of wisdom.

For instance:

Hahaha! you quote IDE's own promotional material as evidence for their achievements.

what's next? trying convince me that lynx helps with the ladies by linking to Unilever promotional material?

 

[Transpontine]

It's bad on a moral level because the wage you earn should reflect how useful and/or important your job is, how difficult and how specialised.

And in a capitalist market do you really think that wage levels bear any relation to usefulness? Highly paid people in the city don't actually produce any social utility (in terms of goods or services). It is tautological to say that wages reflect 'importance', since importance in our society is often measured in terms of wealth (i.e. they must be important because they get paid a lot).

 

[Guybrush]

I don't for a second buy this claim about Sweden being poorer than the poorest state in the US. Aren't the Scandinavian countries meant to have amongst the highest standards of living in the world, with state-funded education, health and other services Americans can only dream of? Where are Sweden's trailer parks and inner-city ghettos?

The Nordic countries have the world’s highest taxes, the world’s largest income equality, and they do pretty well when it comes to comparisons like GDP per capita. The thing about Sweden having a lower GDP per capita than the poorest state in the U.S. is correct, but it’s a completely useless statistics when used without weighting in other factors.

List of Countries by GDP (PPP) Per Capita

1 Luxembourg 84,507
2 Ireland 46,786
3 Norway 45,452
4 United States 45,175
5 Iceland 41,208
6 Hong Kong SAR 40,685
7 Switzerland 38,797
8 Denmark 38,072
9 Austria 37,535
10 Canada 36,821
11 United Kingdom 36,568
12 Finland 36,324
13 Netherlands 36,240
14 Sweden 35,729
15 Belgium 35,692

List of Countries by Tax Revenue As Percentage of GDP

1 Sweden 51.1
2 Denmark 49.7
3 Belgium 45.4
4 Norway 45.0
5 Finland 44.5
6 France 44.3
7 Iceland 42.4
8 Austria 41.9
9 Italy 41.0
10 Czech Republic 38.5
11 Luxembourg 37.6
12 United Kingdom 37.2
13 Hungary 37.1
14 New Zealand 36.6
15 Spain 35.8

23 United States 26.8

List of Countries by Income Equality (Gini index: An index of 0 represents perfect economic equality, and 100 perfect inequality)

Denmark 23.2
Finland 26.9
Iceland —
Norway 25.8
Sweden 25

United States 45
United Kingdom 36.8

In short, the market-fundamentalists have a very hard time explaining why the Nordic countries keep faring so well despite their unwillingness to embrace the formulae that have made the U.S. the apex of Western civilisation.

The high taxes don’t bother people as much as you would expect, as professionals can easily find well-paid work abroad if they are so inclined. Furthermore, the university fees being fixed at about 40 dollars per semester, and every student’s being entitled to a state allowance every month equivalent to about a third of a median monthly wage, facilitate becoming an internationally competitive professional in the first place.

Edit: I hope you don’t mind the rambling digression

 

[Mr. Tea]

Hmm. Scandinavia looks like a pretty attractive place to live until you take a peek at the suicide rates.

 

[noel emits]

Get some 'daylight' bulbs and don't listen to too much black metal and you should be alright.

 

[Guybrush]

Hmm, in that first paragraph that I posted up there it should read ‘the world’s lowest income inequality.’

The thing about the supposedly high suicide rate is a factoid, actually:

List of Countries by Suicide Rate (gotta love them busy Wikipedia bees)

Suicides per 100,000 people per year

1. Russia 38.7
2. Lithuania 38.6
3. Belarus 35.1
4. Kazakhstan 28.8
5. Slovenia 28.1
6. Hungary 27.7
7. Estonia 27.3
8. Ukraine 26.1
9. Latvia 26.0
10. Japan 23.8
11. Sri Lanka 21.6
12. Belgium 21.1
13. Finland 20.6
14. Croatia 19.6
15. Serbia and Montenegro 19.3

28. Denmark 13.6
30. Sweden 13.4
35. Iceland 12.6
44. Norway 10.9

46. United States 11.0
60. United Kingdom 6.9

... Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner:

93. Syria 0.1 !!!

 

[crackerjack]

1. Russia 38.7
2. Lithuania 38.6
3. Belarus 35.1
4. Kazakhstan 28.8
5. Slovenia 28.1
6. Hungary 27.7
7. Estonia 27.3
8. Ukraine 26.1
9. Latvia 26.0

So the top 9 were all soviet communist, until recently. What brings this wave of depression? Confused by the sudden abundance of consumer choice? Pissed off that all the hot girls emigrate to London on the arm of thieving plutocrats? Or just being told that everything they 'knew' was true is offically 'wrong'.