X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.2 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: 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 l86DRaux028886 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:27:37 -0400 Received: from eyewitness.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.131]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l86DR15F027742 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:27:08 -0400 Received: FROM mailout07.sul.t-online.com (mailout07.sul.t-online.de [194.25.134.83]) BY eyewitness.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46E00017.43069.24406 ; 6 Sep 2007 09:26:48 -0400 Received: from fwd29.aul.t-online.de by mailout07.aul.t-online.de with smtp id 1ITHNR-0005cf-02; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:26:33 +0200 Received: from HUGOGO (r1fhYqZEgexnWsyTe0M4AGjEvZvA4M0F8FF+fSl0CZvufXHyL3bOsM Æ [84.134.215.54]) by fwd29.t-online.de with esmtp id 1ITHNM-1DS00m0; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:26:28 +0200 Message-ID: <00c101c7f089$84f47eb0$0901a8c0 Æ HUGOGO> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C7F09A.481DF0A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-ID: r1fhYqZEgexnWsyTe0M4AGjEvZvA4M0F8FF+fSl0CZvufXHyL3bOsM X-TOI-MSGID: 42885093-8307-481e-9d7e-78c4a02b3d67 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: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:26:22 +0200 To: "James W Mickens" , "Daniel Reeves" Cc: "Kevin Lochner" , "Dave Morris" , , , From: "Franz Marschall" Subject: Re: mind the gap This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C7F09A.481DF0A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Hi Danny and James, =20 Let's think about this analogy: A group of people live on an island with plenty of food and many coconut = trees. Climbing up a tree and picking a coco nut doesn't take away = anything from the others. Those who are fit enough to climb a tree = gracefully give away 20% to 25 % of the nuts they harvest to the = spectators who were watching them. Imagine following rule would be = enforced: Anybody who picks coco nuts has to give away 1/3rd to 1/2 to those who = appear to have no coco nut. Does anybody from this mailing list belief that overall supply of = harvested coco nuts will increase? Or, that those who didn't get enough = coco nuts under the old habit would now get more? Or does anybody think, that a skilled climber would train himself to = pick more nuts in less time? The same applies to $, Pounds, Euros etc. Franz ----- Original Message -----=20 From: James W Mickens=20 To: Daniel Reeves=20 Cc: Kevin Lochner ; Dave Morris ; improvetheworld Æ umich.edu ; = reeves-hayos Æ umich.edu ; reeves-kalkman Æ umich.edu=20 Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:51 PM Subject: Re: mind the gap > And I don't think you clarified what James is saying. He said that = more=20 > real wealth to billionaires does directly hurt poor people. I'd = like to=20 > hear the chain of causality he has in mind. According to Graham, "wealth is not money. Money is just a convenient = way=20 of trading one form of wealth for another. Wealth is the underlying=20 stuff---the goods and services we buy." The underlying stuff, the = goods=20 and services, are constrained resources. For example, using a wealth=20 resource in one way often prevents its use in a different way; real = estate=20 that is used to build a library can't be used to build a sports = stadium.=20 Wealth is also constrained by the rate at which it can be produced. = There=20 are a finite number of automobiles that can be produced per month. = There=20 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=20 means that many types of wealth are scarce. Ergo, distribution = matters. In=20 particular, skewed wealth distributions directly hurt poor people = because=20 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=20 else. Thus, the Daddy Model of Wealth is not totally broken. Wealth is = not=20 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.=20 Thus, there will never be enough wealth to maximize everyone's = utility.=20 But given diminishing utility returns on wealth accumulation, sound = public=20 policy should ensure that wealth imbalances do not grow too large. ~j ------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C7F09A.481DF0A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 

Hi=20 Danny and James,

 

Let=92s=20 think about this analogy:

A=20 group of people live on an island with plenty of food and many coconut = trees.=20 Climbing up a tree and picking a coco nut doesn=92t take away anything = from the=20 others. Those who are fit enough to climb a tree gracefully give away = 20% to 25=20 % of the nuts they harvest to the spectators who were watching them. = Imagine=20 following rule would be enforced:

Anybody who picks coco nuts has to give away = 1/3rd to=20 1/2  to those who appear = to have no=20 coco nut.

Does=20 anybody from this mailing list belief that overall supply of harvested = coco nuts=20 will increase? Or, that those who didn't get enough coco nuts under the = old=20 habit would now get more?

Or=20 does anybody think, that a skilled climber would train himself to pick = more nuts=20 in less time?

The=20 same applies to $, Pounds, Euros etc.

 

Franz

 

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 James W=20 Mickens
Cc: Kevin Lochner ; Dave = Morris ; improvetheworld Æ umich.edu = ; reeves-hayos Æ umich.edu ; reeves-kalkman Æ umich.edu =
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, = 2007 10:51=20 PM
Subject: Re: mind the gap

> And I don't think you clarified what James is=20 saying.  He said that more
> real wealth to billionaires = does=20 directly hurt poor people.  I'd like to
> hear the chain = of=20 causality he has in mind.

According to Graham, "wealth is not = money.=20 Money is just a convenient way
of trading one form of wealth for = another.=20 Wealth is the underlying
stuff---the goods and services we buy." = The=20 underlying stuff, the goods
and services, are constrained = resources. For=20 example, using a wealth
resource in one way often prevents its use = in a=20 different way; real estate
that is used to build a library can't = be used=20 to build a sports stadium.
Wealth is also constrained by the rate = at which=20 it can be produced. There
are a finite number of automobiles that = can be=20 produced per month. There
are a finite number of hours that = doctors can=20 spend treating patients.
These figures may improve over time, but = they=20 will still be finite. This
means that many types of wealth are = scarce.=20 Ergo, distribution matters. In
particular, skewed wealth = distributions=20 directly hurt poor people because
there is a finite amount of = wealth for=20 everyone to share, and giving a
unit of wealth to one person is = equivalent=20 to taking it away from someone
else. Thus, the Daddy Model of = Wealth is=20 not totally broken. Wealth is not
money, but many types of wealth = *are*=20 constrained by natural limits.

A society's wealth can grow over = time,=20 but it will never be infinite.
Thus, there will never be enough = wealth to=20 maximize everyone's utility.
But given diminishing utility returns = on=20 wealth accumulation, sound public
policy should ensure that wealth = imbalances do not grow too = large.

~j
------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C7F09A.481DF0A0--