--Apple-Mail-17-1016559376
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
He's got interesting points, but I think he underplays the theft/
unethical gain that occurs and the overplays the value added (wealth
created) by those who become rich.
In the creation of Microsoft and Apple, for example, there were third
parties who did much of the real work, and most of what those who
actually got the credit did was marketing and combination. Valuable,
yes, but impossible without the others.
There's a local tech company here that was operating not for profit
and doing very well doing small research contracts for the
government. It was maneuvered to become for profit, was bought out
two or three times, and now is held by a huge company that is rapidly
destroying it by applying big company mechanics that stifle the
creativity that was the companies original value. The CEOs in charge
made a ton of money in the process, all of the employees got screwed,
and no real value was added anywhere. Similar to what Clair
described at Tampax.
I think things like this are more prevalent than he admits.
The ability to stay rich when you start with money does not actually
represent additional value added to society, and I think there are
more people like that than he suggests. Playing the stock market does
not contribute to society. Investing in new companies does. It's a
fine line, but I think we've gotten too much separation of rich and
poor in our society because of the way our stock market currently
operates, and that could use some correction. I agree that
inheritance taxes are good as well, to help prevent too many
generations of people staying rich for free. But we should try to
reign in the various tricks which exist to leverage large sums of
cash into even larger sums via short term tricks in business and
stocks without actually contributing anything. Not only do they
take funds from people with less, they hurt the country overall.
But he is also correct- there's a wide variance of skill and
motivation in people, so there should be a wide variance in income
levels. I'd accept a factor of 100 variance from top to bottom in
salary as a reasonable maximum in relative value to society that a
person could be. Some people bust their asses continuously to help
the world. Some people actively try to live off of others without
contributing anything. I do have a problem with the factor of 1000
or 10000 variances that sometimes occur, but those are obvious flaws
that are difficult to correct.
Interesting to consider. :-)
Dave
On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> We've been debating this essay
> http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html
> and I thought I'd move it to improvetheworld...
>
> I'll start: Graham is so right! The income gap between the rich
> and the poor is wonderful!
>
> Actually it started more as a debate about the nature of capitalism
> and interest ("why should money 'grow'?"). Here was the gist:
>
> * [the economy] is a zero-sum game, isn't it?
> - no
>
> * those earning money are taking it away, even if only indirectly,
> from
> other people, no?
> - no, not if you think in terms of wealth (wealth = stuff you want,
> money = way to transfer wealth)
>
> * Or am I totally simplifying the haves vs. the have-nots with my pie
> metaphor?
> - yes, that's precisely the Daddy Model of Wealth!
>
> * Is it THEORETICALLY possible for no one to owe any money at all
> in this
> world, i.e., that everyone just has money that "grows"? Or does
> money
> only grow if it is taken away from others?
> - You're right, not possible, but for the opposite reason of what
> you seem
> to be suggesting. You grow money by giving it to someone
> (lending it),
> not by taking it away.
>
> It even got a bit heated, along the lines of "Trixie, I don't think
> it's right for you to lash out against capitalistic/yootlicious
> ideas without grokking the answers to your questions [above]".
>
> Oh, and I offered a yootle to the first person who could answer the
> quasiphilosophical question why money *should* grow, with the hint
> that it has to do with human mortality. I believe that's the only
> reason that holds in all circumstances.
>
> In any case, Trixie wanted to resume the debate and this is clearly
> the place to do it!
>
> DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE WHEN YOU REPLY (so it's easy for
> those not interested in this debate to delete the whole thread).
>
> Ok, go!
> Danny
>
> --
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
> "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
> -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
>
>
>
Dave Morris
cell: 734-476-8769
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~thecat/
--Apple-Mail-17-1016559376
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1
He's got interesting points, but I think he underplays the theft/unethical
gain that occurs and the overplays the value added (wealth created) by those
who become rich . In the creation of Microsoft and Apple, for example,
there were third parties who did much of the real work, and most of what those
who actually got the credit did was marketing and combination. Valuable, yes,
but impossible without the others. There's a local tech company here that
was operating not for profit and doing very well doing small research
contracts for the government. It was maneuvered to become for profit, was
bought out two or three times, and now is held by a huge company that is
rapidly destroying it by applying big company mechanics that stifle the
creativity that was the companies original value. The CEOs in charge made a
ton of money in the process, all of the employees got screwed, and no real
value was added anywhere. =A0 =A0Similar to what Clair described at Tampax.
I think things like this are more=A0prevalent than he admits. The ability
to stay rich when you start with money does not actually represent additional
value added to society, and I think there are more people like that than he
suggests . Playing the stock market does not contribute to society. Investing
in new companies does. It's a fine line, but I think we've gotten too much
separation of rich and poor in our society because of the way our stock market
currently operates, and that could use some correction .=A0 I agree that
inheritance taxes are good as well, to help prevent too many generations of
people staying rich for free.=A0 But we should try to reign in the various
tricks which exist to leverage large sums of cash into even larger sums via
short term tricks in business and stocks without actually contributing
anything.=A0 =A0Not only do they take funds from people with less, they hurt
the country overall . But he is also correct- there's a wide variance of
skill and motivation in people , so there should be a wide variance in income
levels. I'd accept a factor of 100 variance from top to bottom in salary as a
reasonable maximum in relative value to society that a person could be. Some
people bust their asses continuously to help the world. Some people actively
try to live off of others without contributing anything. =A0 =A0I do have a
problem with the factor of 1000 or 10000 variances that sometimes occur , but
those are obvious flaws that are difficult to correct . Interesting to
consider. :-) Dave On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
We've been debating this essay =A0 http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html
and I thought I'd move it to improvetheworld ... I'll start: =A0 Graham is
so right! =A0 The income gap between the rich and the poor is wonderful!
Actually it started more as a debate about the nature of capitalism and
interest ("why should money 'grow'?"). =A0 Here was the gist : * [the
economy] is a zero-sum game, isn't it ? - no * those earning money are
taking it away, even if only indirectly, from =A0 other people, no? - no,
not if you think in terms of wealth (wealth =3D stuff you want, =A0 money
=3D way to transfer wealth ) * Or am I totally simplifying the haves vs.
the have -nots with my pie =A0 metaphor? - yes, that's precisely the Daddy
Model of Wealth ! * Is it THEORETICALLY possible for no one to owe any
money at all in this =A0 world, i.e., that everyone just has money that
"grows"? Or does money =A0 only grow if it is taken away from others? -
You're right, not possible, but for the opposite reason of what you seem =A0
to be suggesting. =A0 You grow money by giving it to someone (lending it),
=A0 not by taking it away . It even got a bit heated, along the lines of
"Trixie, I don't think it's right for you to lash out against capitalistic
/yootlicious ideas without grokking the answers to your questions [above]".
Oh, and I offered a yootle to the first person who could answer the
quasiphilosophical question why money *should* grow, with the hint that it has
to do with human mortality . =A0 I believe that 's the only reason that holds
in all circumstances. In any case , Trixie wanted to resume the debate and
this is clearly the place to do it! DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE WHEN
YOU REPLY (so it 's easy for those not interested in this debate to delete the
whole thread ). Ok, go! Danny -- =A0
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people /dreeves =A0 - - =A0 search://"Daniel
Reeves " =A0 "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
=A0=A0 -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner , U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
Dave Morris cell: 734-476-8769 http://www-personal.umich.edu
/~thecat/
--Apple-Mail-17-1016559376--
|
