--0-1766097172-1189386254=:1116
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I drafted most of a note just like Kevin's Friday night, and found that Kevin
had effectively completed it Saturday. Specifically, with the same idea that
I could bring the discussion to some conclusion, though I no longer think that
this is possible. However, I think there is still a lot of polite ,
inadvertent straw-manning in these arguments (see Kevin being right again with
his note today). James' last lines were the key to my understanding :=0A =0A"A
new unit of wealth may =0Aeventually produce dividends for everyone , but that
is not what we're =0Adebating. We're debating whether your wealth generation
can negatively =0Aimpact my wealth generation, and the answer is
yes."=0A=0A...and I think that these words are entirely consistent with this
statement: Generating wealth (producing a good or service) does not hurt any
one. If the new product or service is produced more efficiently or is more
desirable than the other products on the market, it may change the conditions
that other people had been previously exploiting to create wealth . But, it
does not negatively impact another person's current wealth. =0A =0AThe future
is not guaranteed, and people who work to think about what the world will want
tomorrow should be rewarded for helping us all be prepared . People who make
more desirable goods with less desirable raw materials should also be rewarded
for their efficiency. Contributing more goods or services to society may
allow one person to trade their goods for a disproportionate amount of gold,
green paper, or fancy cars; but it does not negate all the goods and services
they previously provided.=0A =0AA separate issue discussed is how unequal
access to resources can lead to unfairness in wealth. This is obvious to all,
however, we shouldn't confuse equal resources with equal access to resources.
Just because the ethanol producers are taking more corn, doesn't mean that the
beef producers didn't have an equal opportunity to have purchased that corn to
do something less efficient with it. Now, they'll hopefully have equal
opportunity to invest their resources in an ethanol distillery. =0A =0AThis
is why I believe in equal opportunity , not equal assets nor equal "ends."
This would require a government that works to ensure equal access to resources
(not infinite nor absolute access), very high inheritance taxes, low income
taxes, low sales tax, free access to a good education for children of all
income levels, free access to trade your goods and services, property tax
rates that essentially turn over a corporation's land rights over the lifespan
of the average investor , etcetera. =0A=0AThanks,=0ACameron
--0-1766097172-1189386254=:1116
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A =0A I drafted most of ;a note just like Kevin's Friday night,
and found that Kevin had effectively completed it Saturday. Specifically,
with the same idea that I could bring the discussion to some conclusion,
though I no longer think that this is possible. However, I think there is
still a lot of polite, inadvertent straw-manning in these arguments (see Kevin
being ;right again with his note today). James' last lines were the key
to my understanding: =0A =0A "A new unit of wealth may eventually produce
dividends for everyone, but that is not what we're debating. We're debating
whether your wealth generation can negatively impact my wealth generation,
and the answer is yes." =0A ; =0A ...and I think that these words are
entirely consistent with this statement: Generating wealth (producing a good
or service) does not hurt any one. If the new product or service is produced
more efficiently or is more desirable than the other products on the market ,
it may change the conditions that other people had been previously
;exploiting to create wealth. But, it does not negatively impact ;another
person's current wealth. =0A =0A The future is not guaranteed, and people
who work to think about what the world will want tomorrow should be rewarded
for helping us all be prepared . People who make more desirable goods with
less desirable raw materials should also be rewarded for their efficiency.
Contributing more goods or services to society may allow one person to trade
their goods for a disproportionate amount of gold, green paper, or fancy cars;
but it does not negate all the goods and services they previously provided.
=0A =0A A separate issue discussed is how unequal access to resources can
lead to unfairness in wealth. This is obvious to all, however, we shouldn't
confuse equal resources with equal access to resources. Just because the
ethanol producers are taking more corn, doesn't mean that the beef producers
didn't have an equal opportunity to have purchased that corn to do something
less efficient with it . Now, they'll hopefully have equal opportunity to
invest their resources in an ethanol distillery. =0A =0A This is why I
believe in equal opportunity, not equal assets nor equal "ends." This would
require a government that works to ensure equal access to resources (not
infinite nor absolute access ), very high inheritance taxes, low income taxes,
low sales tax, free access to a good education for children of all income
levels, free access to trade your goods and services, property tax rates that
essentially turn over a corporation's land rights over the lifespan of the
average investor, etcetera . =0A =0A Thanks, =0A Cameron
--0-1766097172-1189386254=:1116--
|
