X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_NEUTRAL 	autolearn=no version=3.2.2
Sender: -1.9 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l84Kqcux032382 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:52:38 -0400
Received: from madman.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.134]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l84Kq2Sn032079 	for <dreeves &AElig eecs.umich.edu>; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:52:09 -0400
Received: FROM edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu (edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.27]) 	BY madman.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46DDC55E.D1EDB.20990 ;  	 4 Sep 2007 16:51:43 -0400
Received: from edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) 	by edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l84KpkGT023291; 	Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:51:46 -0400
Received: from localhost (jmickens &AElig localhost) 	by edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id l84KpkQA023287; 	Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:51:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709041122301.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709041608000.20635 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708311319410.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>      <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708311738480.8357 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>      <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708311840370.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>     <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708312152240.14854 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>     <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709032355520.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>    <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709040114090.21858 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>   <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709040907590.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709041058110.4182 &AElig oshkosh.eecs.umich.edu>  <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709041122301.3721 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on 	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:51:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
cc: Kevin Lochner <klochner &AElig eecs.umich.edu>, Dave Morris <thecat &AElig umich.edu>,         improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu, reeves-hayos &AElig umich.edu,         reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu
From: James W Mickens <jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: mind the gap

> And I don't think you clarified what James is saying.  He said that more 
> real wealth to billionaires does directly hurt poor people.  I'd like to 
> hear the chain of causality he has in mind.

According to Graham, "wealth is not money. Money is just a convenient way 
of trading one form of wealth for another. Wealth is the underlying 
stuff---the goods and services we buy." The underlying stuff, the goods 
and services, are constrained resources. For example, using a wealth 
resource in one way often prevents its use in a different way; real estate 
that is used to build a library can't be used to build a sports stadium. 
Wealth is also constrained by the rate at which it can be produced. There 
are a finite number of automobiles that can be produced per month. There 
are a finite number of hours that doctors can spend treating patients. 
These figures may improve over time, but they will still be finite. This 
means that many types of wealth are scarce. Ergo, distribution matters. In 
particular, skewed wealth distributions directly hurt poor people because 
there is a finite amount of wealth for everyone to share, and giving a 
unit of wealth to one person is equivalent to taking it away from someone 
else. Thus, the Daddy Model of Wealth is not totally broken. Wealth is not 
money, but many types of wealth *are* constrained by natural limits.

A society's wealth can grow over time, but it will never be infinite. 
Thus, there will never be enough wealth to maximize everyone's utility. 
But given diminishing utility returns on wealth accumulation, sound public 
policy should ensure that wealth imbalances do not grow too large.

~j