X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MR_DIFF_MID autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Sender: -1.6 (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 l91FG3ux013952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:16:04 -0400 Received: from guys.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.14.135]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l91FFRsx009387; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:15:27 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY guys.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 47010F20.E91A6.14412 ; 1 Oct 2007 11:15:45 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l91FFAHE009315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:15:11 -0400 Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l91FFcux013934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:15:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (dreeves Æ localhost) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id l91FFcB0013931 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:15:38 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: dreeves Æ boston.eecs.umich.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <00c101c7f089$84f47eb0$0901a8c0 Æ HUGOGO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) 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-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.2, clamav-milter version 0.91.2 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:15:38 -0400 (EDT) To: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Daniel Reeves Subject: Re: mind the gap First of all, here's an attempt to summarize this whole debate into a self-contained essay, an FAQ on capitalism: yootles.com/gap POLL RESULTS: Results of the Ingrid poll (below): 0.5, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 3.1, 3.5, 4, 3+, 3+, 5/3+, 5, 5. I did a bad job of distinguishing 3-5 but I'm glad everyone but Trixie was above a 2, ie, you felt Ingrid's story is largely true including for rich people. Also, the wufoo poll ( http://dreeves.wufoo.com/forms/mind-the-gap/ ) was 8 "correct"s to 1 "wrong" with everyone else "other". I'm not sure if I managed to convince James about either case. JAMES, DAVE, AND CONVERGENCE OF OPINION: James and I, with some mediation from Kevin, continued debating off-list (this included, I kid you not, each of us graphing historical GDP data for Chile). My position did shift a bit from when the public debate started. In fact, as I alluded yesterday, I converged on something similar to Dave, but with a more libertarian twist: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008142 Ie, give every single American $10k/year. (Amazingly, we could do that with the money we now (or will by 2011, I think) spend on entitlement programs. A compromise solution would be vouchers for each of the basic needs Dave identified. We already do that with food vouchers (the government doesn't attempt to actually produce food for poor people, even though food is an even more basic need than housing or education).) Addendum: It is starting to hit me how truly insane it is that entitlement programs work out to anywhere near $10k/year spent per person on average [could someone help verify that?]. This is not "goverment inefficiency", it's waste on a tragic scale. --- \/ FROM Daniel Reeves AT 07.09.09 18:24 (Sep 9) \/ --- > James, I think you're empirically wrong that wealth creation is anything like > a zero-sum game and I'm working on my response! > > In the meantime, let's have another straw poll (you don't have to have > followed along so far to answer this). Answer first with a single number > (fractional numbers allowed -- it's a continuum) to just me so I can compile > the results and then write another message clarifying if you choose. > > Do you think that Ingrid's Story below is: > 0. fundamentally wrong and confused about the nature of capitalism. > 1. totally idealized and not reflective of reality. > 2. true (minus the yachts part) for many everyday people, but rarely for > the very rich. > 3. largely true but the caveats like inheritance are fundamental. > 4. true with caveats. > 5. gospel. > > > Ingrid's Story: > > There is a tendency to view a disgustingly rich person as a greedy > parasite on society. This view is fundamentally confused. In a free > market, every dollar our rich friend Ingrid has was handed over by someone > for whom Ingrid did something that person valued. Ingrid did something > valuable for tons of people and in return they gave her green paper. > That green paper, Ingrid's riches, represents favors we all owe Ingrid in > return. She can redeem them for yachts and whatnot and that's quite fair > in the sense that the value she created for others is at least as much as > the goodies she buys for herself with that money. (If she's the most > ruthless possible capitalist [1] then she'll have extracted 100% of the > surplus and the value of her yachts-and-whatnot will equal the value she > created for others. If she falls short of that ideal she'll have created > *more* wealth for others than she enjoys herself.) > > > [1] Assuming she's not cheating/stealing/swindling. I'm not commenting > on how pervasive malfeasance is but you really have to be a > hardcore socialist to feel that more progressive taxation is the > solution to it. That's doling out punishment indiscriminately, and > can't possibly help deter malfeasance. > > > --- \/ FROM James W Mickens AT 07.09.08 17:32 (Yesterday) \/ --- > >>> . . . in the real world, wealth I create in no way decreases your wealth, >>> whether I'm turning my yarn into a sweater, turning my dirt and my seeds >>> into food, learning how to remove a brain tumor, writing a book, etc. >> >> This is only true if the inputs to wealth generation processes are >> infinite. If the precursors to wealth generation are scarce, then the >> action of creating wealth can prevent someone else from maintaining their >> current wealth level. Consider my corn example. There are multiple wealth >> generation processes that require corn as input: livestock production, >> ethanol generation, the creation of corn-based foodstuffs for humans, etc. >> Given a finite supply of corn, the redistribution of corn inputs to the >> ethanol sector (which leads to a subsequent boom in ethanol wealth) >> directly retards the expansion of the livestock and foodstuff sectors, and >> makes it more difficult for these sectors to maintain their current profit >> levels. This hurts their prospects for wealth generation. >> >> Wealth generation might convert low valued inputs into high valued outputs, >> but this does not mean that the inputs are limitless. Wealth creation is >> often dependent on valuable resources that are highly contested. Thus, the >> generation of a unit of wealth often implies a winner and a loser in a >> battle over raw input. 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. >> >> >> ~j >> > > -- http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves" "Press any key to continue or any other key to quit."