Re: wealth and property rights

At 09:08 PM 11/26/96 -0500, Stephen Boursy <boursy@earthlink.net> wrote:
>  I sincerely don't believe that.  If you look at your above
>examples, or Bill Gates below, much of their motivation is not
>the accumulation of weath per se but rather power and performance.
>I know I would do much the same job (not that I'm in the wealthy)
>even if the salary were more or less--I enjoy it (I'm a programmer).
>Same is true for education--much of the motivation is either 
>intrinsic or status oriented and has little or nothing to do with
>marketablity.

This is provably bullshit.  Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this
country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
going to work.  Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the
Soviet Union - two countries with quite similar natural resources and
population.  To believe as you do belongs in the same category as believing
in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.  It requires complete ignorance of reality.

>> In a capitalist society, I have to provide something that you want 
>> more than your wealth in order to obtain it.  
>
>  That's true--as with all labor--but it is a matter of scale.  
>Gates would do the same thing if you limited his income just
>for the sake of power accumulation--he's got all the money
>he could ever consume.  That's not his real motive.

More bullshit.  You don't know what anyones motives are.  To ascribe your
motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic.  

What is your defined limit on what people should earn?  A thought
experiment.  The govt decides that the maximum anyone can earn in a lifetime
is $10M.  Bill Gates earns his $10M, he then decides that he doesn't feel
like working for free, so he quits.  Pretty soon, the people most effective
at creating wealth in society will all "reach their limit" and quit.  Then
the economic growth rates in this country can approach those of the
socialist societies that you seem to adore.  Either that or the best and
brightest will leave.  
 

>> 5. Government is the least efficient means of resolving the problem.  The
>
>   As inefficeint as it is it is really the only effective means.  A
>simple 100% inheritance tax would be very helpful as would limitations
>on how much property a given individual (and a corporation is a virutal
>individual) may own.

See my above points.  Implement this and prepare the for US to become a
third world country.  100% inheritance taxes would probably be the largest
incentive for people to leave (they leave now with ONLY a 50% inheritance
tax).  And who would get the money?  Those who are producing nothing, giving
them even greater incentives for producing nothing (heck, get welfare
payments up around $50K and I would quit work - I could find lots of
enjoyable and intellectually stimulating ways to keep myself busy!).


>  As to your other issue here--earnings and limitations on accumulation,
>much would be equalized without inheritance.  But yes--there would
>still be accumulators--most would still produce regardless of
>limits because as I said their motives are not simply income--power,
>prestige, etc. all come in to play as well as the gratification that
>comes with winning.  Gates enjoys his cover on Time Mag. much more
>than a few extra million a day.

Bullshit.  See above.

>  But the basic answer to your argument--from my standpoint--is that
>some people are extremely intellegent, others very gifted in other
>ways, others very dull witted, etc.  Some possess artistic genius
>that can pay off immediately, others have none that is valued dollar
>wise by society.  I sincerly don't believe one has the right to
>live better than the other--that the rewards, if different, sould
>be negligable.  
>
>  If I could make as much as I do know programming by working as
>a clerk in a convenience store or whatever I would still choose to
>do what I am doing.  If you are in a different situation you're
>in the wrong career.

You are extremely idealistic.  Try coming back to reality.  Examine the
"test cases" for the policies you advocate (and there are plenty of examples
of socialist policies both in this country and others) - and realistically
assess the consequences.  If you do this, you will find that these policies
are unworkable, and lead to lower - not higher standards of living for
everyone.  

        Clay
*******************************************************
Clay Olbon			    olbon@ix.netcom.com
engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc.
**********************************************tanstaafl

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> 
> This is provably bullshit.  Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this
> country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
> going to work.  Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the

I don't know how much people get on welfare in your country but I
suspect that it is even less than in this country (Canada). Anyone who
truly believes that people make the `economic decision to do nothing and
go on welfare vs. going to work' has, in my opinion, no &^%* idea what
they are talking about. Just try to *live* on a welfare wage for a few
months to see how silly this thought is. While there may well be a few
`welfare-moms' (which is not necessarily a bad thing, taking care of
children is an investment for society), the vast majority of people on
welfare (at least here)  would *much* rather get a decent job and work
for their money. There are, perhaps, a few people who would rather not
work for minimum wage (who find it impossible to feed their family on
that) but I suspect that those folks are few and far between. 

[...]
 
> More bullshit.  You don't know what anyones motives are.  To ascribe your
> motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic.  

But you claim to know the motives of those on welfare: pot->kettle->black

Just to be clear, I don't really agree with the original points being
made, but your views seem just as far off as the ones you are opposing, 
perhaps further. 

cheers, kinch

> 
> On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> > This is provably bullshit.  Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this
> > country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
> > going to work.  Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the
> I don't know how much people get on welfare in your country but I
> suspect that it is even less than in this country (Canada). Anyone who
> truly believes that people make the `economic decision to do nothing and
> go on welfare vs. going to work' has, in my opinion, no &^%* idea what

     If you think that most people on welfare live _purely_ off welfare 
then you are smokin stupid weed. 

> they are talking about. Just try to *live* on a welfare wage for a few
> months to see how silly this thought is. While there may well be a few
> `welfare-moms' (which is not necessarily a bad thing, taking care of
> children is an investment for society), the vast majority of people on

     I would like to formally invite you to come live in my neighborhood 
for a couple weeks and see how these "welfare" moms are "taking care of 
their children". 

 welfare (at least here)  would *much* rather get a decent job and work
> for their money. There are, perhaps, a few people who would rather not
> work for minimum wage (who find it impossible to feed their family on
> that) but I suspect that those folks are few and far between. 

     You are living in a dream world. In most major cities there are NO 
full time minimum wage jobs left, other than waiting tables (which pays 
minimum + tips) Macdonalds starts people at 6 to 6.50 an hour. 

> > More bullshit.  You don't know what anyones motives are.  To ascribe your
> > motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic.  
> But you claim to know the motives of those on welfare: pot->kettle->black
> Just to be clear, I don't really agree with the original points being
> made, but your views seem just as far off as the ones you are opposing, 
> perhaps further. 

    Speaking of Pot Kettle Black. 

    In the Chicago paper last sunday there were over 30 pages of Help Wanted 
ads. There is a lot of work out there, and there are a lot of agencies who
will help you find work, and train for work. There is no reason why anyone 
needs welfare. Stupid and lazy is not a reason. 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, snow wrote:
You are clearly an angry young man. I am sorry you have such a poor
opinion of people, I am even more sorry if it is justified. You can
believe me or not, but what you describe is *not* the ordinary case in
this country. Of course, in this country we have a disgusting 10+%
unemployment rate. Even if people DO want to work, there are no jobs.

All that aside, I can tell you do not have a family if you thing that
$6.50/hr is a living! Even accounting for the difference in our dollar,
I would say that is barely subsistence income for a single person. Are
we *all* not worthy of more than that?

cheers, kinch


Key fingerprint =  CE 54 C3 93 48 C0 74 A0  D5 CA F8 3E F9 A3 0B B7

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Dave Kinchlea wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, snow wrote:
> You are clearly an angry young man. I am sorry you have such a poor
> opinion of people, I am even more sorry if it is justified. You can
> believe me or not, but what you describe is *not* the ordinary case in
> this country. Of course, in this country we have a disgusting 10+%
> unemployment rate. Even if people DO want to work, there are no jobs.
> 
> All that aside, I can tell you do not have a family if you thing that
> $6.50/hr is a living! Even accounting for the difference in our dollar,
> I would say that is barely subsistence income for a single person. Are
> we *all* not worthy of more than that?
> 
> cheers, kinch
> 

The above is a catchall I have heard too many times in trying to justify 
a minimum wage. What most people fail to remember is that it is not 
whether or not a person is worthy of the wage, but more to the point what 
someone is willing to pay for their time to exercise a skill set they 
have developed.

Those who understand this simple principle and are willing to work to be 
successful, by whatever defintion of success they apply, will ultimately 
achieve their goal. 

...Paul

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:

> This is provably bullshit.  Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this
> country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
> going to work.  Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the

Actually, at the risk of interrupting your little diatribe, the average
welfare recipient is on the dole for under 4 months.  While we're on the
subject, I may as well point out that the average welfare recipiant is also
white, lives in a lower-middle class suburban neighborhood, and has two or
fewer children, but you'd never know it from watching the pols...

At any rate, as I mentioned in my last post, you and I are paying three times
as much to corporate welfare as to personal welfare...

[Source: Michael Moore _Downsize_This_, NY Crown Books, 1996]

> See my above points.  Implement this and prepare the for US to become a
> third world country.  100% inheritance taxes would probably be the largest
> incentive for people to leave (they leave now with ONLY a 50% inheritance

Actually, the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the world, and far
less of your tax money goes to welfare (or foreign aid, or disaster relief,
etc.) than in any other industrialized nation...

[ibid]

> tax).  And who would get the money?  Those who are producing nothing, giving

Yes, your taxes do go to those who are producing nothing, namely a bunch of
CEOs and wealthy shareholders

> them even greater incentives for producing nothing (heck, get welfare
> payments up around $50K and I would quit work - I could find lots of
> enjoyable and intellectually stimulating ways to keep myself busy!).

Or welfare payments of up to $500 million at a shot, if you happen to be GE, or
General Motors...

> Bullshit.  See above.

You keep using that word...  I do not think it means what you think it means...

> You are extremely idealistic.  Try coming back to reality.  Examine the
> "test cases" for the policies you advocate (and there are plenty of examples
> of socialist policies both in this country and others) - and realistically

The only examples of large-scale socialism we have are in extremely statist
environemnts.  Statism is brutal and innefficient no matter what economic
system it pays lip service to.

--
				Jim Wise
				System Administrator
				GSAPP, Columbia University
				jim@santafe.arch.columbia.edu
				http://www.arch.columbia.edu/~jim
				* Finger for PGP public key *

> On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> > This is provably bullshit.  Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this
> > country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
> > going to work.  Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the
> Actually, at the risk of interrupting your little diatribe, the average
> welfare recipient is on the dole for under 4 months.  While we're on the
> subject, I may as well point out that the average welfare recipiant is also
> white, lives in a lower-middle class suburban neighborhood, and has two or
> fewer children, but you'd never know it from watching the pols...

     These people are using welfare as it was intended to be used, and while 
they are the vast majority numbers wise, they probably account for less than
40% of expendatures. 

> At any rate, as I mentioned in my last post, you and I are paying three times
> as much to corporate welfare as to personal welfare...

    Which should be eliminated completely and with as much haste as possible. 

> > tax).  And who would get the money?  Those who are producing nothing, giving
> Yes, your taxes do go to those who are producing nothing, namely a bunch of
> CEOs and wealthy shareholders
 
     Wealthy shareholders may not be producers in the strictest sense of the 
word, but without them (or rather without their capital) many businesses ]
would not have been able to grow or get started. They produce _jobs_ which 
is more that can be said of your average machine-punch operator. 

     CEO's produce decesions(sp?). That is sufficient for the shareholders. 
   

> > Bullshit.  See above.
>You keep using that word...  I do not think it means what you think it means...

    You sure do. 

> > You are extremely idealistic.  Try coming back to reality.  Examine the
> > "test cases" for the policies you advocate (and there are plenty of examples
> > of socialist policies both in this country and others) - and realistically
> The only examples of large-scale socialism we have are in extremely statist
> environemnts.  Statism is brutal and innefficient no matter what economic
> system it pays lip service to.

     Socialism can _only_ exist in an extremely statist enviroment.
 
Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com