The Morality of Opulence

[mugaliens]

A man in New England is building what he claims will be the biggest house in the world (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070901/ap_on_re_us/mammoth_mansion). Barring certain buildings occupied by heads of state, it may very well be.

Some question the morality of such opulence, regardless of whether the individual can afford it many times over or not.

What are your thoughts?

[hhEb09'1]

A man in New England is building what he claims will be the biggest house in the world (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070901/ap_on_re_us/mammoth_mansion). Barring certain buildings occupied by heads of state, it may very well be.Eh? Even the article at that link says Donald Trump's place is much bigger.Some question the morality of such opulence, regardless of whether the individual can afford it many times over or not.Well, he does have an observatory, so I guess it's OK. :)

If his movie theater has a ticket booth, is it really all a private home? :think:

[schlaugh]

It's his money. So long as he earned it legally he can spend it how he sees fit.

[Neverfly]

It's his money, his house, his problem...

Why is it anyone else's business?

From the article:
"It's the same thing as why people buy a $150,000 car when the same function can be performed by a $25,000 car," Ahluwalia said. "I can afford it. I can have it. I want to have the biggest house in the world. Things like that."

Some question the morality of building a private home that large.

"Do you actually need to have that amount of space to live a good life?" said Susan A. Eisenhandler, a sociology professor at the University of Connecticut. "There are homeless people. There are impoverished people. There are serious social concerns, and we're not addressing that."

Why is THAT an issue? We are not addressing that? Who is not addressing that? What relevance does that have to this guys mansion?

You KNOW this guy Chase is paying enormous taxes.

This article is deeply disturbing...

[sarongsong]

Hee-hee, just contrasting "morality of opulence" with Christopher Hitchens' description of Mother Theresa's milieu of "ostentatious poverty", which he just employed on this morning's interview on BookTV.
Maine is such an unexpected locale for this project in that, among all of the states, has a reputation of being the home of tight-lipped thriftiness.

[Crash Landing]

A man in New England is building what he claims will be the biggest house in the world (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070901/ap_on_re_us/mammoth_mansion). Barring certain buildings occupied by heads of state, it may very well be.

Some question the morality of such opulence, regardless of whether the individual can afford it many times over or not.

What are your thoughts?

Some statistics from Jeffrey Sachs (2005) "The End of Poverty"

-Each year, more than 8 million people around the world die because they are too poor to stay alive.
-Over 1 billion people—1 in 6 people around the world—live in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1 a day.
-More than 800 million go hungry each day.
-Over 100 million primary school-age children cannot go to school.

What do you think these people think about the opulent lifestyle of the typical resident of Dortmund?

[Neverfly]

Some statistics from Jeffrey Sachs (2005) "The End of Poverty"

-Each year, more than 8 million people around the world die because they are too poor to stay alive.
-Over 1 billion people—1 in 6 people around the world—live in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1 a day.
-More than 800 million go hungry each day.
-Over 100 million primary school-age children cannot go to school.

What do you think these people think about the opulent lifestyle of the typical resident of Dortmund?

What does what they think of his house have to do with anything?

What do they think about the Queen of Englands living conditions or the Popes living conditions?

Or the average guy like me that works freaking hard and although I dont have a mansion- I have worked for and earned a four bedroom two bath house?
What do they think of me?
Should I go and give my house to a group of poor people to share and go live in a box?

[The Supreme Canuck]

If the guy earned the money for the house legally, he can have it. Work hard, get the benefits. That's capitalism right there.

And, despite what people will have you think, that's better for the poor people than the alternative - it's called the invisible hand. Again, I direct your attention to Wealth of Nations and The Fable of the Bees.

[Crash Landing]

What do they think of me?

What I think of you is, that you didn't understand my post.

[Neverfly]

What I think of you is, that you didn't understand my post.

<chuckle>
Could be:p

ETA: I'm not familiar with Dortmund...

[Crash Landing]

<chuckle>
Could be:p

ETA: I'm not familiar with Dortmund...

The point I wish to make would apply to people who agree with the sentiment expressed by the professor in the article. You didn't really come out and say it, but I get the impression that you don't agree, so (if I'm right) my question would not really apply to you. In fairness to mugaliens, he didn't say whether he agrees or not either. Dortmund is a town in Germany, and Germany is a wealthy country that would be looked on with envy by many people throughout the world. Most of the people at BAUT probably come from such places, although I'm sure there are some who don't.

So the question I would like to ask of anyone who thinks it is immoral for someone to live a life of opulence of the level expressed in the article, do they think the level of opulence in their own lives is immoral? People can disagree about the morality of such situations, but I think if they're going to have a moral principle, they ought to apply it consistently.

[Tobin Dax]

Well, he does have an observatory, so I guess it's OK. :)
I'll agree with that. I want my own observatory someday. :)

[Neverfly]

The point I wish to make would apply to people who agree with the sentiment expressed by the professor in the article. You didn't really come out and say it, but I get the impression that you don't agree, so (if I'm right) my question would not really apply to you. In fairness to mugaliens, he didn't say whether he agrees or not either. Dortmund is a town in Germany, and Germany is a wealthy country that would be looked on with envy by many people throughout the world. Most of the people at BAUT probably come from such places, although I'm sure there are some who don't.

So the question I would like to ask of anyone who thinks it is immoral for someone to live a life of opulence of the level expressed in the article, do they think the level of opulence in their own lives is immoral? People can disagree about the morality of such situations, but I think if they're going to have a moral principle, they ought to apply it consistently.

Well, I didn't think I needed to come out and say it point blank considering that I said it pretty clearly:p

I don't agree with Madam Professor.

I do agree with you however. I wonder what the famous "starving little boy in China" would think about the good-hearted professors accomadations?

[Neverfly]

I'll agree with that. I want my own observatory someday. :)

I have one of those large attics like you see in movies (e.g. the Goonies) and I often look at it and think about cutting a hole in the cieling and installing a dome...

<wanders off muttering to himself and daydreaming...>

[Whirlpool]

Everyone has the right to live a lifestyle of what he wants himself to be.
It's his choice , he worked hard for it and he has the right to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

[mugaliens]

I have one of those large attics like you see in movies (e.g. the Goonies) and I often look at it and think about cutting a hole in the cieling and installing a dome...

<wanders off muttering to himself and daydreaming...>

Hey! Why not? The hole will cost you nothing but a few minutes work!

:whistle:

Back to the topic...

I agree with the "invisible hand" theory, and see it in practice every month when I support my two Compassion kids. Been doing it for about 15 years now (not the same two kids!).

Edit: I've also known numerous people who've done construction for various efforts, some ministry, some Peace Corps and the like, for homes, water, sewage, agriculture, education, etc., and none could have afforded to do it if they weren't either well off or had well-off supporters. So, yes, I'm a big fan of the helping hand.

[mfumbesi]

Its his money, he hopefully worked hard for and he is entitled to spend it as he see fit.

What we are not told is what else does he do with his money.
He might be supporting an NGO, providing employment, etc.

[Doodler]

A man in New England is building what he claims will be the biggest house in the world (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070901/ap_on_re_us/mammoth_mansion). Barring certain buildings occupied by heads of state, it may very well be.

Some question the morality of such opulence, regardless of whether the individual can afford it many times over or not.

What are your thoughts?

Stinkin' Socialists...

I'll be honest, I'm personally rather pragmatic. I've been happy as heck in an 800 square foot efficiency apartment. Right now I'm renting a friend's 3 bedroom townhouse and I only use four out of eight rooms. Its honestly about 5 times the house I need, but it works for him to keep someone there, and its fine by me because its 3.9 miles from my office (yeah, yeah, the Doodler's got a little green streak in him, try not to faint)

However, if you've got an aquisitive nature and want to flaunt it within your means, however expansive said means are, go for it. You've earned it, its yours, enjoy it. You win the game of Life.

[DyerWolf]

Presumably the workers are getting paid, as well as the tax man.

--I don't understand the basic premise of the OPQ: wealth or the lack thereof is neither moral nor amoral. There is no nobility in poverty or wealth.

[Doodler]

Some statistics from Jeffrey Sachs (2005) "The End of Poverty"

-Each year, more than 8 million people around the world die because they are too poor to stay alive.
-Over 1 billion people—1 in 6 people around the world—live in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1 a day.
-More than 800 million go hungry each day.
-Over 100 million primary school-age children cannot go to school.

What do you think these people think about the opulent lifestyle of the typical resident of Dortmund?

To quote En Vogue.

Never gonna get it, never gonna get it, never gonna get it, never gonna get it.

[Tobin Dax]

To quote En Vogue.

Never gonna get it, never gonna get it, never gonna get it, never gonna get it.

Don't we frown on out-of-context quotes here? What are you really trying to say, Doodler? :think:

[Doodler]

Don't we frown on out-of-context quotes here? What are you really trying to say, Doodler? :think:

That such a lifestyle is utterly beyond their reach. Unattainable, except for a rare and ambitious few.

You might as well be talking about Camelot, Mount Olympus, or Never Never Land for all intents and purposes with the general population. In the reality of their existance, such a life is utterly fantastical.

[RalofTyr]

It's not really opulence, but rather idiotic egoism.

Word to all that say, "Well, he earned it", most people who are wealthy in America started out wealthy to begin with. Bill Gates was already a millionaire when he founded Microsoft.

If I was born with million dollars, I could turn it into 1.1 million by next year or just live off the $100,000 a year I'm making off it in investments. Accident of birth doesn't mean I should be, well, better than your average American because of that.

And working hard? Yes, we all work hard. Just a few of us have more advantages than other's.

[Larry Jacks]

Word to all that say, "Well, he earned it", most people who are wealthy in America started out wealthy to begin with.

I suggest you read the book, The Millionare Next Door (http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-0175625-5909616?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188948363&sr=8-2). It shows that your claim is an old myth. Most people who are wealthy didn't inherit it nor were they born that way. Most got theirs by starting a business and living within their means.

[Van Rijn]

Word to all that say, "Well, he earned it", most people who are wealthy in America started out wealthy to begin with.

I suggest you read the book, The Millionare Next Door (http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-0175625-5909616?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188948363&sr=8-2). It shows that your claim is an old myth. Most people who are wealthy didn't inherit it nor were they born that way. Most got theirs by starting a business and living within their means.

And, very often, a large part of their "wealth" is tied up in their house. In California, a half million dollar home (depending on location) might be a "small fixer upper" to "pretty nice." Upper end homes are more in the three quarter to million dollar range, and the really nice places (what I would call "mansions") on large lots can easily be in the five to ten million range. Then there are the taxes and upkeep on that, and living expenses. It isn't unusual here to have millionaires next door, and they often don't look particularly wealthy. Actually, there are quite a few people that have tried to buy more house than they can afford, and have gotten in trouble that way.

[RalofTyr]

I'm not talking about the people who are millionares. I'm talking about the guys that build the largest houses in America. Shaq maybe rich, but the guy that writes his check is wealthy.

That's the difference.

[Larry Jacks]

I'm not talking about the people who are millionares. I'm talking about the guys that build the largest houses in America. Shaq maybe rich, but the guy that writes his check is wealthy.

And again, the book's statistics show that your contention that most of the wealthy inherited their money is false.

[Frantic Freddie]

I'll back up Larry Jacks with admittedly anecdotal evidence.I'm friends with a number of millionaires & they're all folks who simply worked hard & managed their money sensibly.
I'll also note that here out west you can't tell who's got a few million socked away just by looking at them.That fellow in the Wranglers (real cowboys don't wear Levis) with the dusty boots & the dented pickup could very well be sittin' on enough cash to buy a small European country.

I'm workin' on my second million.The first one didn't work out,so I'm startin' over ;)

[danscope]

Hi, Consider all the tradesmen and all the little guys who will make a living putting that collossal house together and maintain it as well as the
service staff . The pharoa employs many, and thus by his deeds do his fortunes return to his people.

Best regards, Dan

[Doodler]

Accident of birth doesn't mean I should be, well, better than your average American because of that.

Why not? An accident of birth could leave you dead in the delivery room.

There are no "accidents of birth" in terms of inherited wealth, its a benefit of parents and grandparents with foresight, planning, and luck.

Sorry, but some people are born with a crap hand dealt to them. Contrary to the pansybutted opinions of a few bleedinghearts, not everyone will be a winner at life, and some people just plain suck at taking advantage of opportunities offered to them. They suffer and its their lot in life for being a failure.

Life goes on without them.

[publius]

The richest fellow I know is a character named Buddy. He made his money doing what most people don't want to do, septic tanks building, cleaning, etc. That's a pretty good philosophy. Most people don't want to get near the you-know-what, and are willing to pay through the nose for someone else to that work. And that spetic tank/sewage business got pretty big.

Buddy looks like someone out of "Deliverance", dressing up is wearing a shirt under his overalls. And yes, he drives a beat up pickup about 20 years old. He's retired now. It's sort of like like Mr. Drysdale and Uncle Jed. I don't know for sure what he's worth, but he has investement broker types in town fawning over him, kissing his (ample) rear end and treating him like royalty. Overalls and all. It's quite a sight they see to see him coming out of some of the, "opulent" offices of those investement brokers and bankers wearing his overalls and getting in that beat up truck. When you've got the green, it don't matter what you wear. :lol:

Those investment broker types, while some are good people, some are just make me sick. They turn their nose up until they find out you might have some of that green, then they kiss your rear end. They have talents like those "pyschics" who can fish out information. If you're a Democrat, they're a Democrat, but if you're a Republican, they are too. You like football, they like football. You hate it, they hate it. They're your long lost pal, who thinks just like you do. Yep, I've seen that with my own eyes. Slick.

One memory of ol' Buddy that I'll cherish forever was when I was about 15 years or so. He stopped by this little country store (where much bull was shot over the years) to get a drink. He'd been out digging in the mud somewhere, and was covered from head to toe with mud and probably a little of something else. He smelled rather sharp. :lol:

He walked over to the drink box and bent over to get nearly the last 20 oz Pepsi (glass bottle type, this was in the early 80s). His pants were halfway down his rear end and he shined a rather large, and yes, muddy too, half moon on us all.

He popped the top off, then turned it up and inhaled the entire 20 oz in one gulp. He threw the change down on the counter to pay, and as he did, let out the biggest belch I'd ever heard, rattling the windows and resonating in the timbers. In apology, he exclaimed, "Soooeeeyyyy!", and out the door he went. At that time, he was already worth several million.

A rather well to do fellow retired down here some years after that and built himself a nice spread. He was having some drainage problems around his barn and, well, Buddy was the man for that and that's who was recommended. He called Buddy about it, and Buddy said he'd come smoke it over and they might do business. A day or so after, Buddy got a chance to stop by. He pulled up in his ramshackle truck, covered in mud, and looking like something out of a horror movie. He scared that guy and his wife so bad they wouldn't come to the door and called the cops. And Buddy made it worse by going out to the barn, making them think he was indeed up to something. Ol' Buddy figured they weren't home and was just honoring his word by check out the problem.

And he started out with nothing, and it wasn't anything but hard work, and not letting money burn a hole in his pocket that did it. And not to mention not being too proud to get his hands dirty or mud down the crack of his, well, you know.

-Richard

[Chuck]

September 5, 2007, my 56th birthday. Oh, the immorality of my opulence of living so long! My organic compounds should be fertilizing someone's crops to produce more food. I should be ashamed of myself.

But seriously, folks, is it immoral to buy something that I don't absolutely need to keep myself alive because that money could have been used to buy housing for the homeless? Should no one have the slightest luxury until everyones' basic needs are met?

[publius]

Oh and this "accident of birth" stuff is the reason for the estate(death) tax. Use envy and jealousy to sell it to the masses. However, it doesn't bother the shore 'nuff Big Money Boys, your Rockefellers and your Bill Gates, et. all. They can afford the phalanx of lawyers to take work around that, not to mention putting various loopholes in which they bought and paid for.

That tax gets the Buddy's of the world, not the "filthy rich". And that's not any accident, as my own experience has noted.

A man like Buddy is very dangerous. He can't be easily controlled. He can tell "the man" to stick it where the sun doesn't shine. He's independent. Take someone in the "rat race", up to his eyeballs in debt from buying crap he doesn't need well before he has the means. He is a slave. He can't rock the rock the boat at all. Anything that might interrupt his cash income for one second could destroy him.

And that's why the politicians and the Big Money Boys don't like the Buddy's of the world. And there's some snobbery there too. There is nothing that irks someone with a pedigree, say a Harvard degree, than seeing some old uneducated, dirty, hick redneck like Buddy making many times more money than he does. Old money always looks down on new.

-Richard

[RalofTyr]

Why not? An accident of birth could leave you dead in the delivery room.

There are no "accidents of birth" in terms of inherited wealth, its a benefit of parents and grandparents with foresight, planning, and luck.

Accient of birth doesn't make one more deserving of wealth.

Sorry, but some people are born with a crap hand dealt to them. Contrary to the pansybutted opinions of a few bleedinghearts, not everyone will be a winner at life, and some people just plain suck at taking advantage of opportunities offered to them. They suffer and its their lot in life for being a failure.

Life goes on without them.

You're talking about 99% of the world is born in utter poverty with a crap hand dealt to them.

And if one thinks that how much wealth one has is a measure of success in life, I truely feel sorry for them indeed.

Just curious, Doodler, say you got an illness that cost you your entire life savings to cure and you had to live on the streets with a crap hand dealt to you, would you still feel the same way?

And again, the book's statistics show that your contention that most of the wealthy inherited their money is false.

There's a difference between wealth and being rich. Millionares are rich, but they can lose it all in a summer with a healthy coke habit.

[Van Rijn]

Whatever. You aren't going to make the world wealthy by stealing it from the (currently) rich. You can make the world wealthy with technology and reasonable economics.

[Maksutov]

Tell you what.

I'll try opulence for about twenty, thirty years, and will get back to you on the morality of it.

First thing, where to put that 60" reflector...

:think:

[Argos]

You can make the world wealthy with technology and reasonable economics.

Plus a good governance and ethical values.

[mfumbesi]

The richest fellow I know is a character named Buddy. ................
-Richard
When I was reading your post I had the voice of Morgan Freeman in my head.
Great post, enjoyed it plenty.

[Larry Jacks]

I used to work for "The Millionare Next Door". He was a retired Air Force Captain who started his own company. Over the years, he built it up to 600 employees doing $60 million a year in business with him the sole owner. He was a terrific boss, knew all of us by name, and everybody loved him. All of that time, he lived in the same small house that he'd bought when he was a Captain (I actually lived in a better house than he did). Several years ago, his health started to turn bad so he sold the company for an undisclosed amount and moved to Las Vegas. That was a mistake, but that's a different story.

One of my favorite stories from "The Millionare Next Door" had to do with two businessmen who lived in the same town and who made about the same amount of money each year. One was a lawyer and the other sold mobile homes. The lawyer lived a very high maintenance lifestyle with expensive homes, expensive cars, expensive clothes, etc. He had a lot of stuff but he had even more debt. By contrast, the mobile home salesman lived a reasonable lifestyle. He drove an old pickup truck, dressed for working instead of for show, and lived in a reasonable home. He had a net worth of many million dollars while the lawyer probably had a negative net worth.

The moral of the story is that it isn't how much money you make that really counts but how you spend it or use it. If you make $100,000 a year but spend $105,000, you're heading for trouble. On the other hand, if you make $25,000 a year but only spend $24,000, you'll end up better off in the long run. It has certainly worked out that way for my wife and myself.

[Doodler]

Accient of birth doesn't make one more deserving of wealth.

Yeah, it does. Because the parents were intelligent enough to be well prepared to offer the best life possible to their offspring. Its no accident, its planning.



You're talking about 99% of the world is born in utter poverty with a crap hand dealt to them.

100 people run a race, only 1 can win.

And if one thinks that how much wealth one has is a measure of success in life, I truely feel sorry for them indeed.

Its just one measure, by far not the only one, but its a pretty big one.

Just curious, Doodler, say you got an illness that cost you your entire life savings to cure and you had to live on the streets with a crap hand dealt to you, would you still feel the same way?

Nope, because I'd be cured, in bankruptcy proceedings, and still working my butt off to rebuild my credit while keeping my rent paid.

I've been ingrained with a mentality few people in this overly medicated and pampered country still have. "I don't care if it hurts, get off your fat *** and get it done!" I work hurt, I work sick, I work if I'm running to the john to heave it out the front or back door, doesn't matter. I've worked five days a week in an office doing design work, Saturday and Sunday doing steel work, then Sunday night scrubbing dishes in a restaurant. I broke the $40k a year barrier making $12 an hour. I do not fear hard work, so nothing, not even a lifethreatening illness, will stop me forever. I've got friends, they've got couches. Even if I lose my jobs tomorrow, I'm still a LONG way from living on the streets.


And again, the book's statistics show that your contention that most of the wealthy inherited their money is false.

There's a difference between wealth and being rich. Millionares are rich, but they can lose it all in a summer with a healthy coke habit.

Fools and their money are always parted, being born lucky doesn't imply the intelligence to keep the streak going. You do know quite a significant percentage of lottery winners end up like that? They get all this money, and haven't a clue what to do with it, so they throw it away on houses, cars, and all these other toys, forgetting the long view, that these investments require maintenance, like fuel, taxes, and whatnot, and they end up back at square one.

Its kinda funny to watch.

[publius]

Fools and their money indeed. That was something I was told as a "wee boy", a lesson my father wanted to impart, which has been confirmed many times ever since. The example my father first pointed was this dirt poor local bunch, your basic Jerry Springer trash. One might naively feel sorry for them, my father said, but don't.

You could take that bunch and give them a nice house and land, a nice car, and a nice nest egg in the bank. Come back a year later, and it would all be gone. The house would be falling apart with holes in the wall and that nice car would be up on blocks in the back yard. And they would be whining.

I've seen that over and over. They will blow everything they have on crap/trinkets -- nothing durable, mind you, absolutely nothing to show for where the money went, then expect someone else to pay for the necessities of life.

One guy in particular comes to mind. He started out with a good job, got married and had two girls, and bought a house. It was nice place, but he lost it by the time he was 30. Outgo and debt service exceed the income. Had to move in a trailer. Couldn't hold on to that.

His mother died and left him some land. The first thing he did was borrow money against it, blew it, and lost the land. His brother, who is just the opposite knew that was going to happen. His father, who had died earlier pleaded with his wife not leave him anything as he would just blow it, but she felt sorry for him, of course.

I don't know where he is now. He used to go around trying to borrow money from people just to get by for the week. He had those two little girls and people would feel sorry for him and give the money. My father was one, and I guess he still owes my father a couple thousand dollars from all the hundred dollar bills he would get. And my father knew exactly that money was gone. He wasn't worried about it, just felt sorry for those girls.

Oh, and those girls, well, they're pretty your Jerry Springer types themselves. Wasn't worth it.

-Richard

[Maksutov]

[edit]You're talking about 99% of the world is born in utter poverty with a crap hand dealt to them....Do you have a cite for that figure?

[Ilya]

And again, the book's statistics show that your contention that most of the wealthy inherited their money is false.

There's a difference between wealth and being rich. Millionares are rich, but they can lose it all in a summer with a healthy coke habit.

Your posts leave me very puzzled as to what your definition of "wealthy" is. Care to explain?

One thing is clear -- whatever your definition is, it encompasses a very small number of people. "Mere" millionaires do not count.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Shaq maybe rich...Probably not for long. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20595448/)

[publius]

Another good story I remember. This happened probably sometime in the late '60s and was told to me later. Anyway, a young guy borrows some money to buy a car from an old character who had made something for himself, the "millionaire next door" like we've been discussing. Now, this old gentlemen loans him the money by writing a check for the lump sum. The old guy, name of Claude, did it as a favor, just pay him back with a little interest (whatever you think is fair, son) type of deal when he could.

The young guy drives up to show him the car he bought, and old Claude, said, "Dang, that's a nice one. I wish I could afford a car like that."

There is a good lesson in that story. Why someone says he can't afford something his own money just bought cash explains why he has enough cash to do things like that.

And then, on the less than honorable side, I'll tell you the story about ol' "Spud" (he got the nickname as a child due to some incident with mashed potatoes). Ol' Spud was sort of a redneck playboy type. His father was a prominent doctor who acquired a lot of land and ol' Spud, an only child, just lived off that small fortune. And he got into a lot of "fun", including moonshining, redneck bar hopping, etc, etc.

His neigbors talked about him. He got enough. One in particular, name of "Harley" ran Spud down pretty good. One day, Spud goes over and asks Harley to come down over on his place on some pretense. His gets him way out in a pasture near the woods. He then tells Harley, "You've been talking about me pretty bad I hear, and now I'm gonna whup yo' [hind end] right here and now." Old man Harley took off running like a scalded rabbit, and ran all the way back to his side, jumping a fence. In the process, his hat blew off. Spud could do some serious hind-end whipping when he wanted to.

Spud took that hat and hung it up in his own front hall, and told everyone in town to tell Harley he could come get his hat anytime..... :lol: That became a good way to shut ol' Harley up, they said, just tell him, "Hey, old Spud says you left your hat and why don't you come get it".

In his later years, he got a job as a security guard at a local plant. This would've been back in the '70s. Now, the question was why ol' Spud would get a job like that. He didn't need the money, and so what in the world was he doing.

Well, he was loan sharking some of those hand-to-mouth Jerry Springer types that worked at the plant. :) They'd blow their paychecks over the weekend, and Spud would bring a roll of bills and loan them enough money on Monday to get them by during the week. On Friday, payday, he was right there at the gate, *gun strapped on his side*, to collect that loan, with considerable interest...................

-Richard

[SeanF]

Accident of birth doesn't make one more deserving of wealth.
Okay, let's take that at face value.

Bob's got the wealth. Dave doesn't. Bob is not "more deserving" of that wealth than Dave is, but Bob's got it.

What now?

[Chuck]

Who decides who's more deserving of wealth? If it's the previous owner of the wealth then an heir would be more deserving than anyone else. It's their money and they can give to whoever they please.

[Moose]

*shrug* The OP is a bit of a non sequitor. Buying a stupid-big house with your own money isn't amoral on its own. It isn't moral on its own either.

Spending money "earned" fraudulently: amoral.
Spending money "earned" by (legally) overcharging: amoral.
Spending money to explicitly help others, even if you benefit as a side-effect: moral.
Spending money to benefit yourself, even if you help others as a side-effect: moral, but not very.
Spending money to better yourself: moral.
To improve your standard of living: neither moral nor amoral.
Spending money to survive: neither moral nor amoral.
Spending money on yourself with the sole purpose of showing off: slightly amoral.

[Doodler]

*shrug* The OP is a bit of a non sequitor. Buying a stupid-big house with your own money isn't amoral on its own. It isn't moral on its own either.

Spending money "earned" fraudulently: amoral.
Spending money "earned" by (legally) overcharging: amoral.
Spending money to explicitly help others, even if you benefit as a side-effect: moral.
Spending money to benefit yourself, even if you help others as a side-effect: moral, but not very.
Spending money to better yourself: moral.
To improve your standard of living: neither moral nor amoral.
Spending money to survive: neither moral nor amoral.
Spending money on yourself with the sole purpose of showing off: slightly amoral.

Spending money on yourself in forms of entertainment others find extremey questionable (though not outright illegal): Immoral (though highly enjoyable) ;)

[Ilya]

Spending money on yourself in forms of entertainment others find extremey questionable (though not outright illegal): Immoral (though highly enjoyable) ;)

Anything that "others find extremey questionable" (for more than minuscle numbers of "other") is illegal at least somewhere in the world.

[Doodler]

Anything that "others find extremey questionable" (for more than minuscle numbers of "other") is illegal at least somewhere in the world.

Agreed, but that's their loss, not mine.

[Ivan Viehoff]

So what's new
http://www.burghley.co.uk/t3_historyofthehouse.asp

[TriangleMan]

In a free society someone has the freedom to spend their money however they please, even if others are more deserving, or starving etc. There are some limitations of course, such as certain types of weaponry and drugs, but the overall principle applies. Even then countries have introduced policies to take money from people to distribute it to society for endeavours to help the poor and unfortunate, it is called taxes. It is by no means a perfect system, but at least it does not impinge on the right to earn as much money as you are able to, and spend it on what you wish. If you are insulted by someone spending money on a luxury while others are homeless you'll just have to chalk it up to the price of freedom, societies that have tried to restrict personal wealth inevitably restrict other freedoms as well (e.g. communism)

As an aside, how many poor people who suddenly became rich then turned around and lived in a hovel while spending the money to help all the other poor people around? I'd guess very few. So why should this apply to rich people?

[Maksutov]

In a free society someone has the freedom to spend their money however they please, even if others are more deserving, or starving etc. There are some limitations of course, such as certain types of weaponry and drugs...And women.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

[Decayed Orbit]

You're talking about 99% of the world is born in utter poverty with a crap hand dealt to them.

A lot of people are born in utter poverty, but 99%? What definition are you using?

[Ilya]

You're talking about 99% of the world is born in utter poverty with a crap hand dealt to them.

1% of the world (the portion RalofTyr thinks is NOT born in "utter poverty") is 60 millions. That's a lot smaller than First World population, and even a lot smaller than part of First World above official US poverty level. Apparently, what everyone else calls "middle class", RalofTyr calls "utter poverty". All in all, my conclusion is: RalofTyr is full of it.

OTOH, he does not consider millionaires "wealthy" and claims they "can lose it all in a summer with a healthy coke habit," (how often does that REALLY happen, especially to self-made millionaires?) so maybe he simply has extrmely high definitions for all levels of wealth.

[Decayed Orbit]

Apparently, what everyone else calls "middle class", RalofTyr calls "utter poverty".

I hear every day on the television and radio anguished wailing about the dire hardships faced by Americans who have fallen so low they may soon be reduced to putting regular grade benzine in their SUVs, so I'd say he's not alone...

[weatherc]

I think that what we need is a system that puts a limit on how much people can make, so that the money can go to the people in the poor, working class instead. Of course, the rich people won't want to part with their money because they're greedy, so we will need a strong, centralized government that will force them to give up what they have taken from everyone else. It would also help if this strong, centralized government had charismatic leaders that would be able to convince the people that this was all necessary. I think this system would also need an agency of some type that would keep an eye on everyone to make sure that they agree with this strong, centralized government, because if everyone doesn't go along with the idea, then it can't work; anyone who disagrees with this system, or who won't give up the money they have taken from others, should be put in prison. Such a system would finally make everything better, because the rich would have less (but surely enough to survive), and the poor would have more.

Does anyone know if any country has ever tried a system like this?

[Chuck]

The problem with a wealth limit on the rich is that if someone is earning a lot of money by providing a valuable service to society and he reaches his limit then he has no reason to continue to provide the service. His competitors might then provide it but if their service were as good then they'd be rich too. Society would suffer if you reward incompetence.

[Doodler]

I think that what we need is a system that puts a limit on how much people can make, so that the money can go to the people in the poor, working class instead. Of course, the rich people won't want to part with their money because they're greedy, so we will need a strong, centralized government that will force them to give up what they have taken from everyone else. It would also help if this strong, centralized government had charismatic leaders that would be able to convince the people that this was all necessary. I think this system would also need an agency of some type that would keep an eye on everyone to make sure that they agree with this strong, centralized government, because if everyone doesn't go along with the idea, then it can't work; anyone who disagrees with this system, or who won't give up the money they have taken from others, should be put in prison. Such a system would finally make everything better, because the rich would have less (but surely enough to survive), and the poor would have more.

Does anyone know if any country has ever tried a system like this?

Yeah, Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is a real big fan of wealth redistribution, so long as he gets his cut. The results haven't been pretty.

Thanks, but that kind of quasi-socialism/communism can take a right turn off a cliff with old Hugo strapped to its back.

There's a word for forced wealth redistribution. Its called "theft".

[Ilya]

Yeah, Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is a real big fan of wealth redistribution, so long as he gets his cut. The results haven't been pretty.

Thanks, but that kind of quasi-socialism/communism can take a right turn off a cliff with old Hugo strapped to its back.

There's a word for forced wealth redistribution. Its called "theft".

I think Weatherc was being sarcastic.

[Doodler]

If he was, I apologize (and breath a major sigh of relief). Lacking smileys, I tend to take posts at their word. :)

[weatherc]

I think Weatherc was being sarcastic.I think Ilya may be correct with this thought. :)

[korjik]

I think that what we need is a system that puts a limit on how much people can make, so that the money can go to the people in the poor, working class instead. Of course, the rich people won't want to part with their money because they're greedy, so we will need a strong, centralized government that will force them to give up what they have taken from everyone else. It would also help if this strong, centralized government had charismatic leaders that would be able to convince the people that this was all necessary. I think this system would also need an agency of some type that would keep an eye on everyone to make sure that they agree with this strong, centralized government, because if everyone doesn't go along with the idea, then it can't work; anyone who disagrees with this system, or who won't give up the money they have taken from others, should be put in prison. Such a system would finally make everything better, because the rich would have less (but surely enough to survive), and the poor would have more.

Does anyone know if any country has ever tried a system like this?

Yup. Any country with 'People's' in its name is one that is trying this system out. They are truly shining examples of prosperity and wealth for all the world to see. :)

But, since I have heard worse being said with complete sincerity, I can see where Doodler could think you were serious.

[Larry Jacks]

Back in the Cold War days, there was a foolproof way to look at the name of a country and know if they were communist or free. Any country that had the words "people" or "democratic" was without exception communist.

[RalofTyr]

There's a word for forced wealth redistribution. Its called "theft".

That's also called capitalism, well, exploitations of native resources, but any way.


1% of the world (the portion RalofTyr thinks is NOT born in "utter poverty") is 60 millions. That's a lot smaller than First World population, and even a lot smaller than part of First World above official US poverty level. Apparently, what everyone else calls "middle class", RalofTyr calls "utter poverty". All in all, my conclusion is: crap (as in "crap hand") is what RalofTyr is full of.

It was either 99% or 90%. Knock off the personal attacks. If you think I'm wrong, fly to Ghana, fly to El Salvador, fly to Cambodia and you'll see what I mean.

OTOH, he does not consider millionaires "wealthy" and claims they "can lose it all in a summer with a healthy coke habit," (how often does that REALLY happen, especially to self-made millionaires?) so maybe he simply has extrmely high definitions for all levels of wealth.

Wealth is generation of riches. Wealth is almost impossible to lose. 1% of the Americas control something like 90% of the wealth.

I know you think a million is a lot, but when a house costs half a million, you're not as rich as you seem.

And a few do lose their wealth. Look at MC Hammer.

Okay, let's take that at face value.

Bob's got the wealth. Dave doesn't. Bob is not "more deserving" of that wealth than Dave is, but Bob's got it.

What now?

Dave uses his spear* and takes Bob's wealth

*A spear is only a tool.

[Chuck]

Capitalism is the voluntary redistribution of wealth. People turn their money over to the rich willingly in return for products and services.

[Decayed Orbit]

1% of the Americas control something like 90% of the wealth.

This report (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa586.pdf) cites (and disputes) a source that the top 1% income earners in the US earn about 15% of the income. Granted, that is income, not accumulated wealth. Where did you get your 1%/90% numbers?

[RalofTyr]

There's only two ways to get wealth. Find it or take it from someone else.

This report (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa586.pdf) cites (and disputes) a source that the top 1% income earners in the US earn about 15% of the income. Granted, that is income, not accumulated wealth. Where did you get your 1%/90% numbers?

From various sources. As I did a quick internet seach, the figure varies. I'd say, 1% owns a third and 4% owns half.

[publius]

There's only two ways to get wealth. Find it or take it from someone else.




There is a third way, the all important way. Create it. And that is the source of the fallacy in your thinking, the belief that wealth is a zero sum game. So much misery has been caused by that fallacy.

-Richard

[Torsten]

There's only two ways to get wealth. Find it or take it from someone else.

So, over the years my income has exceeded my spending. I've used that excess to purchase a home, to finance the establishment of the small business I operate, and to buy shares in other businesses, either directly or through units in mutual funds. On balance, the value of all these assets has increased, and my wealth is in the upper half for Canadians. I'll need this wealth to provide an income when I am no longer able to work.

You're saying I stole that wealth? Or it landed in my lap?

In earlier posts you distinguished between being rich and being wealthy, but it was lost on me. Can you explain it? Or did you mean to distinguish between income and wealth?

[Van Rijn]

There is a third way, the all important way. Create it. And that is the source of the fallacy in your thinking, the belief that wealth is a zero sum game. So much misery has been caused by that fallacy.

-Richard

You beat me to it. That third way is becoming more and more important. An IC chip is far more than a bit of silicon. And the DVD or CD is just a bit of plastic without the software.

[Decayed Orbit]

the belief that wealth is a zero sum game. So much misery has been caused by that fallacy.

I thought mercantilist thinking went out of style a few hundred years ago, but...:)

One need only look at the world today versus 1700 - at that time, the population was much lower, and a large majority of people were barely above the subsistence level.

[publius]

I thought mercantilist thinking went out of style a few hundred years ago, but...:)

One need only look at the world today versus 1700 - at that time, the population was much lower, and a large majority of people were barely above the subsistence level.

I don't know what they'd call it now, but the wealth is a zero-sum notion persists. If someone gains, someone must loose, when someone gets richer, someone else must get poorer. Therefore getting rich is stealing. That crap is lurking behind a lot of political and economic "bright ideas".

And that goes hand in hand with another big load of crap, radical egalitarianism. That says that everyone must not merely have an equal opportunity, but must have equal results. It is wrong for anyone to have more than others.

And that achieves equality all right, everyone is equally miserable. I heard someone railing about this was taught in schools at a very early age. The little kiddies were told they needed to bring school supplies. Some bring more and better supplies than others. That is wrong. So the teacher takes them all and puts them in a common pool, and doles them out as needed. It is wrong for little Susie to have a better notebook or more pencils than little Johnny.

That is flat-out "from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs." And it makes me want to puke.

-Richard

[Doodler]

And that goes hand in hand with another big load of crap, radical egalitarianism. That says that everyone must not merely have an equal opportunity, but must have equal results. It is wrong for anyone to have more than others.


Hmm...how you say...No Child Left Behind? ;)

[SeanF]

Okay, let's take that at face value.

Bob's got the wealth. Dave doesn't. Bob is not "more deserving" of that wealth than Dave is, but Bob's got it.

What now?
Dave uses his spear* and takes Bob's wealth

*A spear is only a tool.
I think you misinterpreted my question. "What now?" meant "What do you (RalofTyr) think ought to happen?" In other words, what should society do about the inequity?

[Moose]

I don't know what they'd call it now, but the wealth is a zero-sum notion persists. If someone gains, someone must loose, when someone gets richer, someone else must get poorer. Therefore getting rich is stealing. That crap is lurking behind a lot of political and economic "bright ideas".

Not that I want to get into politics, this being a political thread at BAUT, but there's another side to this: that for every transaction, if you don't win outright, you've lost. So you'd better put the screws to your transactional adversary before he/she does it to you.

That also assumes a zero-sum game, but it seems to be the basis of "capitalism" as it is understood and practiced today. A better word for it is "mercantilism". It's very similar to how the big trading companies operated in Imperial British times. This is where companies like Hudson's Bay would sell beaver pelt top-hats to the gentry in England for scads of money, but turn around and trade a single nail to the natives for the pelt.

I don't know when we stopped thinking that a transaction benefiting both parties (thus value-adding) was good business all around, but what we've got now (any excuse to gouge) is clearly self-defeating outside of the shortest-term.

[korjik]

Hmm...how you say...No Child Left Behind? ;)

But, It's For The Children (tm). Therefor it must be right and it must be done ;)

[RalofTyr]

There is a third way, the all important way. Create it. And that is the source of the fallacy in your thinking, the belief that wealth is a zero sum game. So much misery has been caused by that fallacy.

-Richard

Creating wealth falls under the catagory of taking it from someone else. You are creating a way to take it, like Starbucks. You're taking money from people in exchange for the demand for coffee one created.

However, one must realize that they the earth is vast, there is a finite number of resources. There's only so many new ways to generate income, before it will all eventually run out.

I think you misinterpreted my question. "What now?" meant "What do you (RalofTyr) think ought to happen?" In other words, what should society do about the inequity?

Bob should get taxed more because he has more wealth, than needed and the taxes should fund programs that will enable Dave to have, though not an opulent lifestyle, but a decient quality of life (health care).

Torsten, wealth is more perminate and stable, whereas riches comes and goes.

[SeanF]

Creating wealth falls under the catagory of taking it from someone else. You are creating a way to take it, like Starbucks. You're taking money from people in exchange for the demand for coffee one created.
No, what's happening there is what Moose referred to before in terms of benefiting both parties. Bob is buying coffee from Starbucks because Bob values the coffee more than the money, and Starbucks is selling it because Starbucks values the money more than the coffee. Both parties are better off ("wealthier") after the transaction than before.

Bob should get taxed more because he has more wealth, than needed and the taxes should fund programs that will enable Dave to have, though not an opulent lifestyle, but a decient quality of life (health care).
Why the qualifier "not an opulent lifestyle, but a decient quality of life"? I suspect that what you're implying by that is that you're not saying the final situation must be that Bob and Dave have equal wealth. You're okay with Bob still having more wealth than Dave, in the end. Right?

But, then, Bob still has more wealth than Dave, and he still doesn't deserve the wealth more than Dave. So my original question still stands - Bob has more wealth than Dave but doesn't deserve more wealth than Dave. So what does society do?

What's eventually going to happen with this line of thought is that we're going to reach the point where the government is empowered to decide how much wealth I deserve, and limit me to that amount. I don't want to live under that government.

[publius]

I've heard people lament just how poor economic education is. And this belief about wealth is an example of it. Of course, many in the educational system hold this view anyway, so there we go.

Let's take something we all need, shelter, in the form of a house. What goes into a house? Lumber, which comes from trees, concrete, some copper for wiring and plumbing, some plastics, etc, etc. And labor to put it all together. Now, a funny thing happens. The finished product is worth more than the sum of its parts.

So it is obvious that wealth is not just some measure of mass which is conserved. It isn't something out of nothing, because energy is required to make it. So we need energy, that's for sure. And we also need brainpower, intelligence.

It's sort of reverse entropy thing. You take raw materials, then do intelligent work, to make something in a more "ordered", more useful form. And that ordered, more useful or desirable form is worth more than the sum of the input material. Wealth has been created. Of course, you don't beat regular entropy there, because you need an energy source to do the work.

Where does that energy come from. Well, fossil fuels are one big, well known source. However, Mr. Sun provides an enormous amount as well. I actually wonder if anyone has done the calculations on this. Agriculture, how we feed ourselves, is all about these little "machines", plants, taking energy from the sun, and doing work on raw materials to make something worth more than those raw materials themselves, food.

You mention take money from one to the other. The money supply itself is a big variable. That's what the Federal Reserve is all about. The idea would be to have the money supply to wealth ratio remain the same -- well, not total wealth that's out there, mind you, just the "value of the money", how much wealth a dollar represents. If money increases faster than the wealth of the stuff it's "chasing", you've got inflation. Deflation is the opposite. All that gets a bit complicated. :lol: It's maddeningly complex when your wealth yardstick itself is a variable, sort of like carpenters having rulers where an inch varied from day to day. Drive 'em nuts. But's that the way money has to work, really.

So, wealth and money are all variables, and in a growing ecomony, they are both increasing. That cycle of buying and selling (when real production, real input of energy and brains) is actually increasing the wealth each time a dollar goes around the circuit.

-Richard

[Van Rijn]

However, one must realize that they the earth is vast, there is a finite number of resources. There's only so many new ways to generate income, before it will all eventually run out.


Obviously, the Earth can't support an infinite population, so in a theoretical sense, there is a limit, and there is reason for at least subtle policies to promote family planning. But, there is a great deal of room for technology to increase economic growth faster than population growth for some time to come. Such as:

Moving to cleaner long term energy sources like nuclear, solar, wind, etc.

Cleaner and more efficient material processing methods so we don't need to use already enriched ores, can use more efficient recycling, etc.

More efficient farming and farming in (largely) new environments, such as ocean farming.

[Moose]

Creating wealth falls under the catagory of taking it from someone else. You are creating a way to take it, like Starbucks. You're taking money from people in exchange for the demand for coffee one created.

Not really. Sean got it. Here's the thing. My employer needs skill to get a certain project done. I have the skills they need but don't otherwise have. I exchange my time and skill for the money I need to survive.

That's not a zero-sum transaction. They benefit from my work more than it costs them to pay me. I benefit from the pay more than it costs me to work for them. The net increase in value, to both parties, is far greater than the costs, to both parties. That is capitalism as it was meant to be practiced, and very healthy for the economy.

However, one must realize that they the earth is vast, there is a finite number of resources. There's only so many new ways to generate income, before it will all eventually run out.

I'm seeing another misunderstanding here, very similar to the gotcha that often trips up people who don't quite get "entropy". The Earth may seem to be a closed system, but it's not. In terms of conservation of energy, a balance is maintained between the heat we radiate into space and the light we get from the sun. So when we talk about the Earth's resources, we're also talking about the Sun's resources as well.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Ingenuity and skill are just as much resources as are the more traditional raw goods. The Earth is far bigger than most people realize when you account for the human factors. (This is a big reason why social spending doesn't bother me like it does some folks. I try to keep my eye firmly on the big picture and not only my personal situation. I perceive a large net benefit, even after abuses are accounted for. And that's as far as I'm going to go on that tangent and probably the topic. Taking a really big step back now.)

[Delvo]

Mass isn't lost from the Earth (unless you count ceratin light moleceules from the upper atmosphere and things we launch on rockets, which add up to approximately nothing). Every atoms of anything we've ever "used up" is still here.

[publius]

There is also another fallacy that does much mischief when acted upon. I guess it can be stated as: "A thing should be worth something different than what others will pay for it." Ponder that a bit. The "should be" sometimes comes from notions of morality, fairness, etc, etc.

-Richard

[Vadim]

I've heard people lament just how poor economic education is.

I agree, look at this place. If you're not up on the latest particle physics and say something dumb, you get exiled to this ATM forum where you will promptly get ripped to shreds. But if you're 500 years behind in economic knowledge, that's OK, you can lecture all you want here :)

[Vadim]

Back in the Cold War days, there was a foolproof way to look at the name of a country and know if they were communist or free. Any country that had the words "people" or "democratic" was without exception communist.

Not too many of those left, but the northern half of the Korean peninsula has self-sufficiency as its economic doctrine. Oddly enough, a great many people where I live seem to think national self-sufficiency is good policy.

[Torsten]

Creating wealth falls under the catagory of taking it from someone else. You are creating a way to take it, like Starbucks. You're taking money from people in exchange for the demand for coffee one created.

I think the notion that both sides in the transaction benefit has already been made well enough. But I sense something else in your statement. You make it sound as though the people who buy their coffee at Starbucks have no choice in the matter, as if they are being manipulated by that business. Well, they do have a choice. They can choose to make it themselves, or drink fruit juice from the establishment next door, or ignore both products because the benefit they perceive to be getting isn't worth the money they'd pay. Starbucks does not have the power to make me part with my money just because they open an establishment in my neighbourhood.

There's only so many new ways to generate income, before it will all eventually run out.

This statement reminds of a scene from a comedy set in the late 1800s: At one point in the play a character who was supposedly an inventor, but clearly not very successful, comes storming out of his shop in utter frustration, exclaiming that he's given up because everything that could ever be invented has been.

Bob should get taxed more because he has more wealth, than needed and the taxes should fund programs that will enable Dave to have, though not an opulent lifestyle, but a decient quality of life (health care).

Taxation is a political issue over which we regularly elect to or toss politicians out of office. The problem of course, is that few people can agree on how much taxation is required, and where the tax revenues should be directed. Somehow nations, provinces/states, and municipalities all muddle through it, with a lot of arguing and changes in governments along the way. But I think you also have to distinguish between taxing income and taxing wealth. While I find progressive taxation of income acceptable, the idea that my accumulated wealth should be taxed really annoys me.

Torsten, wealth is more perminate and stable, whereas riches comes and goes.

I don't find your definitions useful. Everything you own is part of your wealth. I tend to categorize the components of personal wealth in terms of liquidity. Cash can be spent in an instant. A house, while it should be a durable structure, varies in value depending on economic conditions, including the cost of credit. Even though it may be valuable, in most markets it would likely require a month to close a deal and convert it to cash by selling it. Much of the stuff inside it, while valuable to the owner, often wouldn't fetch 10 cents on the dollar if sold. But one could get rid of it in a garage sale over a weekend. People who own shares in companies can sell them and have the cash in a couple of days. Selling a privately held business can take much longer. So, if I look at the stuff I own and estimate what it will fetch in non-coerced sales, it comes out like this: House, 19%; stuff in the house, 2%; shares in my business, 14%; shares in publically traded companies and mutual funds, 65%. Cash doesn't even register at this level of precision. Which would you define as wealth, and which as riches?



Publius:
So it is obvious that wealth is not just some measure of mass which is conserved. It isn't something out of nothing, because energy is required to make it. So we need energy, that's for sure. And we also need brainpower, intelligence.

Many of the forests in which I work were once considered next to useless for lumber production, and of no economic value, until the invention of a particular sawing technology and the integration of a woodpulping sector to buy the byproduct chips. The wealth that has accrued from our industry operating in these forests was not "taken", as RalofTyr asserts. It was earned through ingenuity and hard work.


There is also another fallacy that does much mischief when acted upon. I guess it can be stated as: "A thing should be worth something different than what others will pay for it." Ponder that a bit. The "should be" sometimes comes from notions of morality, fairness, etc, etc.

Are you getting at the notion of luxury taxes? To me this is a way for tax-addicted governments to get cash by targeting a select group and defending it to the electorate by playing the morality card. People who can't afford the luxury items might sympathize, and likely cast their ballots favourably next election. Meanwhile, the people who manufacture the luxury items find it harder to make ends meet because sales are down. Or do you mean the idea of taxes on items (eg, pollutants) where it is thought that free markets don't capture the cost to the broader society of the harm done by these items? If it's possible to quantify the costs, and taxes are actually spent to mitigate the problems, the idea seems reasonable to me.

[publius]

Are you getting at the notion of luxury taxes? To me this is a way for tax-addicted governments to get cash by targeting a select group and defending it to the electorate by playing the morality card. People who can't afford the luxury items might sympathize, and likely cast their ballots favourably next election. Meanwhile, the people who manufacture the luxury items find it harder to make ends meet because sales are down. Or do you mean the idea of taxes on items (eg, pollutants) where it is thought that free markets don't capture the cost to the broader society of the harm done by these items? If it's possible to quantify the costs, and taxes are actually spent to mitigate the problems, the idea seems reasonable to me.

Nothing that specific. A thing should be worth something different from what anyone will pay for it........................ Why, the rent on those apartments cost too much, we should, by law, cap the price on them because it's just not fair. They are saying that the worth of renting the apartment is less than what some are willing to pay for it.

Or, isn't just awful that this "noble profession" makes only $X, when these stupid football players, celebrities, or other lummoxes make many times $X. Therefore we should by law increase the salaries of the noble profession and/or cap the salaries of the lummoxes.

And many more. In those cases, it's all about something should be worth something different than the natural price that has developed.

-Richard

[Van Rijn]

Bob should get taxed more because he has more wealth, than needed and the taxes should fund programs that will enable Dave to have, though not an opulent lifestyle, but a decient quality of life (health care).

Taxation is a political issue over which we regularly elect to or toss politicians out of office. The problem of course, is that few people can agree on how much taxation is required, and where the tax revenues should be directed. Somehow nations, provinces/states, and municipalities all muddle through it, with a lot of arguing and changes in governments along the way. But I think you also have to distinguish between taxing income and taxing wealth. While I find progressive taxation of income acceptable, the idea that my accumulated wealth should be taxed really annoys me.


Also, as has been shown over and over, extreme taxation is counterproductive, especially if you go so far as confiscating existing property. Either people stop bothering to work more than absolutely needed, or they go to extremes to hide it, or pay a few people off to ignore it, or move somewhere else with more reasonable policy. All of these things distort and damage an economy. Extreme controls over an economy tends to cause extreme reactions, which tends to spiral to greater and greater control, and a progressively weaker economy.

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

There is also another fallacy that does much mischief when acted upon. I guess it can be stated as: "A thing should be worth something different than what others will pay for it." Ponder that a bit. The "should be" sometimes comes from notions of morality, fairness, etc, etc.

This is an awesome quote that I think captures the nature of most debates in this area. The problem that I think most people who fall prey to that fallacy miss is that they are making a purely subjective statement.

The question it leads to is 'how much is too much and how much is too little?'. Everyone will answer that question differently because there is no way to objectively answer it. Economic freedom allows society, as a fluid and dynamic whole, to set that value and continue to adjust it. The imlpication of that is: If you say that a popular vote (free market) is not the correct way to determine what the correct value of a good or service should be then you are effectively implying that there is an elite ruling class that should decide instead. There is no way around that implication, and it's not one I think a lot of people would want to make.

[Careless]

Back in the Cold War days, there was a foolproof way to look at the name of a country and know if they were communist or free. Any country that had the words "people" or "democratic" was without exception communist.

Taiwan. Exception found.

[Torsten]

The question it leads to is 'how much is too much and how much is too little?'. Everyone will answer that question differently because there is no way to objectively answer it.

And for the same reason, individuals will answer it differently on different days.

But your comment reminds me of something I heard many years ago. Ask a successful businessman "How much do you need?"

Answer: "A little more." ;)

[publius]

Another way to put it is the old adage that one man's junk is another man's treasure. And what is junk and what is treasure can vary with the man with time as well. "My Kingdom for horse!"

And another twist. If you ask people how much they value something, they may not tell the truth. :) For example, the pious man might deny he values wine, women, and song so to speak, but secretly will part with some treasure for them.

Price reflects the truth. :) Friedman made the point that price carries a lot of information. How did it go, the pencil story. You consider all the involved processes involved in making a pencil and getting all the various and sundry raw materials for their origin to their destination. The price of all the things involved in the intermediate stages carries all that information. No one involved in any individual transaction may know and certainly not care about the whole process, but the necessary information propagates through.

It's a swarm of busy bees each doing his own little thing, repsonding to his own local information, and that propagates a whole with a mind of its own so to speak. Mess with press information, and the bees get messed up, colony collpase disorder, I guess. :)

And the bee swarm is much better, more robust that one giant leviathan organism with a master brain trying to control the whole.

-Richard

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by publius http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/64176-morality-opulence-3.html#post1067503)
I've heard people lament just how poor economic education is.
I agree, look at this place. If you're not up on the latest particle physics and say something dumb, you get exiled to this ATM forum where you will promptly get ripped to shreds. But if you're 500 years behind in economic knowledge, that's OK, you can lecture all you want here :)What's the old saying?

Oh yeah:Sour grapes make good whine. http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif