[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.