=0A

"This isn't true.= For example, wealth-generating factories may create
pollutants. These = pollutants can negatively impact my environmental
wealth, e.g., if I ow= n a fishery that is downstream of your dumping pipe.
My ability to grow= fish, i.e., my ability to generate wealth, is hurt by
your ability to = make wealth."

=0A

I agree with you and Danny = here too. But, again, this is an example of making an argument&n= bsp;against a different, but confusingly-similar issue to assert that the o= riginal issue is incorrect.

=0A

"As another ex= ample, generating wealth for
shareholders may be inversely related to g= enerating wealth for the actual
workers in the company. If the company = produces a more efficient service
because my wages have been slashed, b= ut this newfound efficiency increases
the wealth of the stockholders, t= hen I've lost wealth as a result of
others gaining it."

=0A

&n= bsp;

=0A

This would not be a loss of wealth, but a reall= ocation of the spoils of the future wealth creation that the entire process= is still achieving. The appeal to emotion almost got me though. = ; Though people focus on how protectionism helps a few specific people= , they forget it hurts millions more a little bit. Protectionist stra= tegies, in aggregate, hurt a lot. However, those last two lines are&n= bsp;me appealing to emotion too, so feel free to dismiss them.

=0A

----- Original Message ----
= From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves Æ umich.edu>
To: James W Mickens <jm= ickens Æ eecs.umich.edu>
Cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu
Sent: Sunday,= September 9, 2007 7:08:44 PM
Subject: Re: mind the gap

=0A

H= uge thanks to Melanie, Kevin, and Cam for responding to James better than <= BR>I could.  The response I was working on is pretty much obsolet= e now,
fortunately for everyone. :)

I'll just include one techni= cal point below, but feel free to skip it
because I think we've done a = great job of getting to the heart of things.

I hope we're convincing= folks that public policy aimed at redistribution
of wealth is at least= not to be done for its own sake.  Capitalism is at
its core = fair and the injustices, even if so big as to cast a shadow over
the wh= ole system, are nonetheless at the periphery and not the other way
arou= nd.

Cam's last point really hit it home for me.  In my uto= pia, there would be
only inheritance tax, property tax (major lightbulb= moment for me there,
Cam; thanks!), taxes on externalities (like pollu= tion taxes), and revenue
from selling public goods.  Maybe naive but I'm convinced it's the right
directi= on to push towards.

Danny

PS: My stray technical poin= t:

Wealth to which the daddy model applies (yes, I concede it exists= !):
  * valuable stuff buried in the ground
  * l= and itself
  * the electromagnetic spectrum (for radio, tv, ce= ll phones)
  * sunlight, air, rain, wind, oceans
&nbs= p;* roads, the internet

But it turns out those forms of wealth are a= lready mostly distributed like
a good daddy would.  Oil, for = example, is a public good when it's in the
ground and is auctioned off = to companies so that we all get paid for the
raw material that the oil = companies end up with.

Now hold your quibbles!

Let's pretend = we live in Japan which has few natural resources nor even
much land per= person. Yet it churns out as much wealth per person as
Germany.

Side note: A lot of the wealth we consume is services = and information
goods, which has no raw materials component. And of the= physical goods
many can be made from nothing but oil and sand (plastic= and silicon) which
is dirt cheap compared to the final value of the go= ods.

Bottom line of this "technical point":  finite resour= ces are not
fundamental to this debate.

--- \/   F= ROM James W Mickens AT 07.09.08 17:32 (Today)   \/ ---

>= ;> . . . in the real world, wealth I create in no way decreases your wea= lth,
>> whether I'm turning my yarn into a sweater, turning my di= rt and my seeds
>> into food, learning how to remove a brain tumo= r, writing a book, etc.
>
> This is only true if the inputs to = wealth generation processes are infinite.
> If the precursors to wea= lth generation are scarce, then the action of
> creating wealth can prevent someone else from maintaining their current
> we= alth level. Consider my corn example. There are multiple wealth generation =
> processes that require corn as input: livestock production, ethano= l
> generation, the creation of corn-based foodstuffs for humans, et= c. Given a
> finite supply of corn, the redistribution of corn input= s to the ethanol
> sector (which leads to a subsequent boom in ethan= ol wealth) directly retards
> the expansion of the livestock and foo= dstuff sectors, and makes it more
> difficult for these sectors to m= aintain their current profit levels. This
> hurts their prospects fo= r wealth generation.
>
> Wealth generation might convert low va= lued inputs into high valued outputs,
> but this does not mean that = the inputs are limitless. Wealth creation is
> often dependent on va= luable resources that are highly contested. Thus, the
> generation of a unit of wealth often implies a winner and a loser in a bat= tle
> over raw input. A new unit of wealth may eventually produce di= vidends for
> everyone, but that is not what we're debating. We're d= ebating whether your
> wealth generation can negatively impact my we= alth generation, and the answer
> is yes.
>
>
> ~j=
>

--
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -&= nbsp; search://"Daniel Reeves"

  I believe in making = the world safe for our children, but not for our
  children's = children, because I don't think children should be
  having se= x.
    -- Jack Handey

--0-760421390-1189393716=:41181--