[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

I think that's more valid from the top down but less so from the bottom up. As far as the kids are concerned one has opportunity that the other doesn't.

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.

Your use of slavery is a bit inflammatory no? I don't know of anyone in present day America who feels they are enslaved.

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.

There was no double negative, I completely agree that talent and effort increase the chances to get lucky or exploit that luck. But let's say you had two kids with equal talent and both were raised to be hard workers. The one lucky enough to have been born into a family with means is going to have a far better chance at success vs one who was not.

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.

The point is that economics -- as you're well aware -- is about the relationship between capital and labor. Trickle up and trickle down are both valid but one doesn't work without the other...that's why I'm an economic convectionist

Ah, I get it now. Your point is just to "stir the pot" as you like to say. Your smart and crafty enough to know that trope "on the backs of others" is meant to be inflammatory, a call to decry those wealthy s.o.b.'s. How about "the backs of others" depends on the "brains and effort of others" for sustenance?

Not at all, I just find a discussion about entrepreneurs without the inclusion of those actually doing most of the work to be incomplete.

As for stirring the pot, I do make a mean risotto

-spence