Originally Posted by spence
I don't think anyone has ever really called for policy that will remove the desire to work beyond the sustenance level. As long as there's an upside people will try and achieve it, just like the Market...they'll simply go for the best available deal.
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.
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.
I'd also take issue with the idea that success isn't based somewhat on luck. That's not to say that talent, effort and risk taking doesn't increase the chances to get lucky...but ultimately luck is always involved to some degree, especially in new small businesses that don't have the luxury of a proven conservative business model.
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.
Entrepreneurs are certainly a critical component of our economy, but they would be impotent without the sacrifices made throughout society to defend our freedoms, labor in unsafe mines to provide our electricity, work endless hours at low wages to keep services and factories running etc...
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.
Ultimately any fortune, large or small, is built on the backs of others.
-spence
|