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 l7KHIPnd017643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:18:25 -0400 Received: from hellskitchen.mr.itd.umich.edu (smtp.mail.umich.edu [141.211.14.82]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l7KHDnji027421 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:15:53 -0400 Received: FROM [192.168.1.107] (Unknown [64.9.221.37]) BY hellskitchen.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 46C9CA66.2F999.6314 ; 20 Aug 2007 13:07:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-17-1016559376 Message-Id: <93EC811F-946D-4EA2-ADE3-5D43B46EA65E Æ umich.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.2 (2007-07-23) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.91.1, clamav-milter version 0.91.1 on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:07:53 -0400 To: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu Cc: reeves-hayos Æ umich.edu, reeves-kalkman Æ umich.edu From: Dave Morris Subject: Re: mind the gap --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
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!

--=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

 =

= --Apple-Mail-17-1016559376--