--0-760421390-1189393716=:41181
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"This isn't true. For example, wealth-generating factories may create
=0Apollutants . These pollutants can negatively impact my environmental
=0Awealth , e.g., if I own a fishery that is downstream of your dumping pipe.
=0AMy ability to grow fish, i.e., my ability to generate wealth, is hurt by
=0Ayour ability to make wealth." =0A =0AI agree with you and Danny here too.
But , again, this is an example of making an argument against a different, but
confusingly -similar issue to assert that the original issue is incorrect. =0A
=0A"As another example, generating wealth for =0Ashareholders may be inversely
related to generating wealth for the actual =0Aworkers in the company . If the
company produces a more efficient service =0Abecause my wages have been
slashed, but this newfound efficiency increases =0Athe wealth of the
stockholders, then I've lost wealth as a result of =0Aothers gaining it." =0A
=0AThis would not be a loss of wealth, but a reallocation 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 strategies, in aggregate, hurt a lot. However , those last two
lines are me appealing to emotion too, so feel free to dismiss them.=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Daniel Reeves =0ATo:
James W Mickens =0ACc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu=0ASent: Sunday,
September 9, 2007 7:08: PM=0ASubject: Re: mind the gap=0A=0A=0AHuge thanks to
Melanie, Kevin, and Cam for responding to James better than =0AI could. The
response I was working on is pretty much obsolete now, =0Afortunately for
everyone. :)=0A =0AI'll just include one technical point below, but feel free
to skip it =0Abecause I think we've done a great job of getting to the heart
of things .=0A=0AI hope we're convincing folks that public policy aimed at
redistribution =0Aof wealth is at least not to be done for its own sake.
Capitalism is at =0Aits core fair and the injustices, even if so big as to
cast a shadow over =0Athe whole system, are nonetheless at the periphery and
not the other way =0Aaround.=0A=0ACam's last point really hit it home for me.
In my utopia, there would be =0Aonly inheritance tax, property tax (major
lightbulb moment for me there, =0ACam; thanks!), taxes on externalities (like
pollution taxes), and revenue =0Afrom selling public goods. Maybe naive but I
'm convinced it's the right =0Adirection to push towards.=0A=0ADanny=0A=0A
=0A=0APS: My stray technical point:=0A=0AWealth to which the daddy model
applies (yes, I concede it exists!):=0A * valuable stuff buried in the ground
=0A * land itself=0A * the electromagnetic spectrum (for radio, tv, cell
phones)=0A * sunlight, air, rain, wind, oceans=0A * roads, the internet
=0A=0ABut it turns out those forms of wealth are already mostly distributed
like =0Aa good daddy would. Oil, for example, is a public good when it's in
the =0Aground and is auctioned off to companies so that we all get paid for
the =0Araw material that the oil companies end up with.=0A=0ANow hold your
quibbles!=0A=0ALet's pretend we live in Japan which has few natural resources
nor even =0Amuch land per person. Yet it churns out as much wealth per person
as =0AGermany.=0A=0ASide note: A lot of the wealth we consume is services and
information =0Agoods, which has no raw materials component. And of the
physical goods =0Amany can be made from nothing but oil and sand (plastic and
silicon) which =0Ais dirt cheap compared to the final value of the
goods.=0A=0ABottom line of this "technical point": finite resources are not
=0Afundamental to this debate.=0A=0A=0A--- \/ FROM James W Mickens AT
07.09.08 17:32 (Today) \/ ---=0A=0A>> . . . in the real world, wealth I
create in no way decreases your wealth, =0A>> whether I'm turning my yarn into
a sweater, turning my dirt and my seeds =0A>> into food, learning how to
remove a brain tumor, writing a book, etc.=0A>=0A> This is only true if the
inputs to wealth generation processes are infinite. =0A> If the precursors to
wealth generation are scarce, then the action of =0A> creating wealth can
prevent someone else from maintaining their current =0A> wealth level .
Consider my corn example. There are multiple wealth generation =0A> processes
that require corn as input: livestock production, ethanol =0A> generation , the
creation of corn-based foodstuffs for humans, etc. Given a =0A> finite supply
of corn, the redistribution of corn inputs to the ethanol =0A> sector (which
leads to a subsequent boom in ethanol wealth) directly retards =0A> the
expansion of the livestock and foodstuff sectors, and makes it more =0A>
difficult for these sectors to maintain their current profit levels . This =0A>
hurts their prospects for wealth generation.=0A>=0A> Wealth generation might
convert low valued inputs into high valued outputs, =0A> but this does not
mean that the inputs are limitless. Wealth creation is =0A> often dependent on
valuable resources that are highly contested. Thus, the =0A> generation of a
unit of wealth often implies a winner and a loser in a battle =0A> over raw
input. A new unit of wealth may eventually produce dividends for =0A>
everyone, but that is not what we're debating. We're debating whether your
=0A> wealth generation can negatively impact my wealth generation , and the
answer =0A> is yes.=0A>=0A>=0A> ~j=0A>=0A=0A-- =0Ahttp://ai
.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"=0A=0A I believe
in making the world safe for our children, but not for our=0A children 's
children, because I don't think children should be=0A having sex.=0A --
Jack Handey
--0-760421390-1189393716=:41181
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A =0A =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 own 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 =0A I agree with you and
Danny here too. But, again, this is an example of making an argument
;against a different, but confusingly-similar issue to assert that the original
issue is incorrect. =0A =0A "As another example , generating wealth for
shareholders may be inversely related to generating wealth for the actual
workers in the company. If the company produces a more efficient service
because my wages have been slashed, but this newfound efficiency increases
the wealth of the stockholders, then I've lost wealth as a result of others
gaining it." =0A ; =0A This would not be a loss of wealth, but a
reallocation 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 strategies , in
aggregate, hurt a lot. However, those last two lines are ;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
<jmickens Æ eecs.umich.edu> Cc: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2007 7:08:44 PM Subject: Re: mind the gap =0A Huge
thanks to Melanie, Kevin, and Cam for responding to James better than I
could. The response I was working on is pretty much obsolete now,
fortunately for everyone. :) I'll just include one technical 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 whole system, are nonetheless at the periphery and not the
other way around . Cam's last point really hit it home for me. In my utopia
, there would be only inheritance tax, property tax (major lightbulb moment
for me there, Cam; thanks!), taxes on externalities (like pollution taxes),
and revenue from selling public
goods. Maybe naive but I'm convinced it's the right direction to push
towards. Danny PS: My stray technical point : Wealth to which the daddy
model applies (yes, I concede it exists !): * valuable stuff buried in the
ground * land itself * the electromagnetic spectrum (for radio, tv, cell
phones) * sunlight, air, rain, wind, oceans ;* roads, the internet
But it turns out those forms of wealth are already 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 goods . Bottom line of
this "technical point": finite resources are not fundamental to this debate.
--- \/ FROM James W Mickens AT 07.09.08 17:32 (Today) \/ --- > ;>
. . . 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"
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 sex .
-- Jack Handey
--0-760421390-1189393716=:41181--
|
