baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Ah sorry, thought you were being sarky.
There's a good survey link here:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pr...ents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm
vimothy
yurp
A "free market" is a heuristic. In reality, pretty much all markets are subject to varying degrees of regulation.
State intervention into the market can be a good thing - it just tends not to be.
And yes, I would allow people to pay for their own schooling, should they want to. It's not really anyone else's business.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
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.
"Slum landlord" - obviously economic productivity is not the only value of measure. Anyway, this is hypothetical - it all depends on what you mean by slum. He might be both productive and destructive.
(I remember an anarcho-capitalist once saying, "I'm in favour of capitalism, not capitalists" - makes sense to me).
Cool
Don't see why assets shouldn't be productive.
As to who benefits, I think you might be looking at it too broadly. It's benefitting people in society.
vimothy
yurp
It's not rocket science, turtles
Of course, yes, that's why Asians are the ethnic group earning the biggest income in the US.
vimothy
yurp
No, but they act in what they perceive as being their best interests. That's why the welfare state is so huge and expensive.
Strong correlation - and I'm not claiming otherwise. However, there is no solution that involves wealth re-distribution. Poverty in terms of income is not the problem.
vimothy
yurp
Ha! I personally think that's gross over-simplification, but anyway, do explain...
vimothy
yurp
Ok - let's imagine a world in which Bill Gates has no money:
Are you personally any better off? No, but income disparity has improved. Result! In fact you could take this further, as per Frank McGahon's idea to destroy income inequality altogether: "Simply take all the money off those earning over 60% of the average wage... put it in a big container and set it on fire. Bingo: the "poor" become "rich" without receiving a single extra cent!"
In fact the amount of money in Bill Gates' bank account has little to do with the amount of money in yours. Total global wealth is not a fixed amount. Money going to the pocket's of the rich doesn't come directly from the pockets of the poor. Income inequality is a non-issue. Absolute or chronic poverty is the real issue.
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.
Now let's imagine a world in which there is no Bill Gates period:
Are you personally any better off? Obviously not - no one would be. You would actually in all probablity be worse off, because you would not be able to take advantage of all the products and technology that Bill Gates has developed. Certainly all the people currently working for Microsoft would be worse off. The same is true for all those using the technology Gates has developed. Would we even be able to have this debate without Bill Gates?
vimothy
yurp
The US is very low, Britain much higher. The differences between the two systems and their outcomes reflect the US' greater degree of economic freedom and Britain's commitment to welfare state subsidised poverty.
vimothy
yurp
But there needn't be. That's my point.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I'm sure most people who aren't simply jealous of the very wealthy would rather see income disparity decrease via the poor getting richer, not the rich getting poorer.
This is clearly untrue if you've ever bought a Microsoft product, isn't it?
This might be the case with Gates and co., as poor people tend not to own computers full stop. But what about (for instance) American and European farmers whose incomes are protected by punitive taxes on the importation of much cheaper produce from developing countries? That is, pretty much, an example of some people economically benefiting from the impoverishment of others, and you, as a free marketeer, ought to be dead against it (protectionism and cartels, I mean).
I agree, as far as that goes.
Well DUH, that's because they've got shitloads of money! That statistic reflects more on the sheer volume of their incomes than on the percentage of their incomes they pay as tax.
Well I don't really know enough about the history of rival computer systems and OSes to say this for sure, but many would argue that computer technology - the technology available to you and me as Johnny Consumer, I mean - would be far more advanced today if Microsoft hadn't had such a monopoly on PC software for so long.
Though of course there is that dangerously un-American, potentially communistic 'open source' Lunix software that hackers and terrorists use...
Last edited:
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
Er, sorry, what? The US has low social mobility, Britain has higher social mobility, West Germany (the sample was sons born in 1970) and Sweden have even higher social mobility, and this demonstrates that welfare states hamper social mobility?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
vimothy
yurp
Yeah of course, that's what I said:
Income inequality is a non-issue. Absolute or chronic poverty is the real issue.
In a pendantic sense producers make you poorer if you purchase their product, but what I was driving at was that Bill Gates large income does not impact negatively on the size of your own.
I am dead against it, but you're missing the point, which is (in this instance) that protectionism only keeps people poor, it doesn't make them poor. Anyway, I'm not talking about trade liberalisation.
And if there were no Bill Gateses (pl.)?
Though of course there is that dangerously un-American, potentially communistic 'open source' Lunix software that hackers and terrorists use...
Actually, open source is pretty much the polar opposite of communism.
borderpolice
Well-known member
Which technology has BG developed? As far as i am aware none.
Until recently, the software Microsoft has developed has been inferior to that of the competition in most respects.
BG/MS is a really bad choice for showing of the virtues of unrestraint wage differentiation.
vimothy
yurp
Well, I was just going off the figures in my head. According to the LSE report, Britain and America both have very low rates of social mobility, and Britain's is getting wider (America's is not).
The strength of the relationship between educational attainment and family income, especially for access to higher education, is at the heart of Britain's low mobility culture and what sets us apart from other European and North American countries.
And this is despite free education in this country, i.e. access to education is not determined by family income - but educational output for students is.
vimothy
yurp
Socialism (or any other form of collectivism) is chattel slavery.
And free healthcare is not actually free, as should be obvious to anybody.
borderpolice
Well-known member
Clearly there is a very strong positive correlation between parental income and educational levels. There is an even stronger correlation between parental educational level and the academic achievements of their children.
Japan is a very interesting country to look at if you want to see a very high powered economy. It is also extremely equal.