Yep, I agree. Sappy and Bitter Crank obviously don't like accumulations of wealth, but they have done precious little to rationally justify this dislike, apart from saying it's oppression, without being able to show how.The issue here seems to just be the unequal distribution of wealth. There's nothing in principle wrong with it. — Michael
But I haven't given up hope yet, and if I am forced to make some compromises here and there along the way, then so be it. Certainly, I have not discarded the idea of government intervention, in some form or other. — Sapientia
Yep, I agree. Sappy and Bitter Crank obviously don't like accumulations of wealth, but they have done precious little to rationally justify this dislike, apart from saying it's oppression, without being able to show how. — Agustino
You're dancing around the issue a bit. What do you think a 1% / 99% society would actually look like and would you be happy to live in it? — Baden
For the top one percent, incomes adjusted for inflation went up from $990,000 in 2009 to $1,360,000 in 2015, a 37-percent increase, according to Saez.
For the bottom 99 percent, incomes went up from $45,300 in 2009 to $48,800 in 2015, a 7.6-percent increase.
If the government were to pursue all wealth, which seems unlikely considering how many of the wealthy are in government, it would remove any incentive for innovation or hard work. — ProbablyTrue
I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that a major component of our consumerist civilization's continuation is the widespread agreement, albeit tacit agreement for the most part, regarding the values and assumptions holding sway over the way we think and act, the way we direct our energies and abilities. — Erik
So the issue seems just as much (if not more) cultural and philosophical as it is economic. We stop buying needless shit, start spending more of our time cultivating non-instrumental relationships with others (and 'nature,' however pathetic that sounds), start reading and thinking and appreciating things that are currently viewed as non-productive wastes of time since they don't typically provide us with financial payoff, etc. That's a world I would like future generations to live in, if human beings are even around for much longer, since I see it as being vastly superior to the one we inhabit now. — Erik
Please cite it here. — Agustino
Right, and we discussed in what regards he is right and in what regards he isn't. He's not right that if 1% owns 99% of the wealth it's necessarily bad. That 1% of the wealth left may be enough - hypothetically - for the 99% to be able to have a decent life.But fdrake already did the legwork in terms of analysis on this and provided you with ample evidence of the negative effects of unequal distributions of wealth. — Baden
The top 1% do not yet own 99% of the wealth, which is the hypothetical of the OP. Not even close. It's more like 50%. So the question stands. — Baden
Besides, I was addressing your criticism of my claim that "[it's] better for the 1% to have £1,000,000 and the 99% to have £30,000 than for everyone to have £20,000." — Michael
No, I actually have no clue.No. Cite it yourself if need be. I'm certain that you know what I'm referring to. — Sapientia
Yeah, and I asked you what does balance and proportion have to do with this? Why is it that things need to be proportionately distributed, and if they do, what does that mean? Does that mean equal? Maybe some do deserve to get a lot more than others.I spoke about balance and proportion, I gave you analogies, and I have given you concrete examples. — Sapientia
I've just asked you to show me how it is unfair. You're just telling me that it is, you're not giving me any reasons why. You're just stomping your feet that it is. That's dogma, not thinking.You just don't recognise as fairness or unfairness what I do, and there's only so much that I can do about that. — Sapientia
Families are required to have a successful business. Who will run the business and continue your work after you die?Elsewhere, I have seen you praise family values, yet here, you praise the individual in spite of family values. — Sapientia
What stops your average person from starting a business and being successful? I want CONCRETE answers now, not bullshit 99% of businesses fail. I'm not concerned about that. I want to know why they fail, and hopefully amongst the reasons there will be a few which the average person cannot even access. That hasn't been my experience though.the average person — Sapientia
You two, especially Sapientia, have some serious misunderstanding about what wealth is. — Agustino
For example, in his very first post, Sapientia compares the yearly income of an individual paramedic with the total assets of the Hinduja family. Of course, that's like comparing apples and oranges, because the two are NOT the same. — Agustino
You should check what their incomes are. — Agustino
But I can tell you one thing for sure - they do deserve to take home many many many orders of magnitude more than a single paramedic. — Agustino
He saves lives by relying on instruments created by people like the Hinduja families, cars, oil, phones, etc. — Agustino
Right, and we discussed in what regards he is right and in what regards he isn't. He's not right that if 1% owns 99% of the wealth it's necessarily bad. That 1% of the wealth left may be enough - hypothetically - for the 99% to be able to have a decent life.
Money is a fictive commodity though. It only gets its value because we agree, collectively, to give it value and to respect that value in order to facilitate trade with each other. Without money, I would only be able to give you my corn for your wheat and so on so forth.Wealth, in the relevant sense, is a broad term relating to monetary worth, not what Agustino rigidly defines it to be. It can of course be measured, and it can of course be measured in various ways. — Sapientia
No, no, it wouldn't make much difference, just of the order of a couple of 1000s :-}But that doesn't matter, because we both know roughly what the results would be if I did, and it wouldn't make much of a difference. — Sapientia
What are the rules?but play by the rules — Sapientia
Why would it be fair for the paramedics to receive a share of the profits of a business that they do not run and are not involved in? :s - so basically you have these people who do almost 0 for those factories, and yet they get to have a part of the profits... I cannot see how that is fair.There would be others who are competent enough and willing to take over. Why would you think that I expect the paramedics to run the business, rather than, at least initially, after the redistribution, receive a share of the profits thus far amassed? — Sapientia
So if you were mistaken, then in this particular case it would be okay to let them have so much wealth right?That would be a waste of time. The chances that my expectations would be wildly mistaken is very slim. And if, despite all of the odds, that turned out to be the case, I would just pick a better example. — Sapientia
Everything in society is some sort of negotiation, if we don't negotiate then we're effectively at war. Negotiation prevents conflicts which can lead to a lot more damage. And the wealthy can negotiate as much as the poor for that matter. It seems that you imagine yourself to be somewhat like Putin, walking into town, meeting the billionaire (Oleg Deripaska), and telling him what to do or otherwise...The Hinduja family would be proportionately rewarded. The Hinduja family are replaceable. If the Hinduja family were not willing to work under the system I propose, then the Hinduja family would be replaced. This isn't a negotiation. — Sapientia
No, they only apply to individuals in-so-far as you don't know what you're talking about.I understand it quite well, statistics apply to individuals insofar as they support your arguments, and they do not apply to individuals to the extent that they do not support your arguments. — fdrake
I never claimed that :s . Either you start representing what I say truthfully, or there's no point discussing.Also your claim that a phenomenon has to be 'truly random' to have statistics applied to its study is just false. — fdrake
Yeah, so what?Model fits from experiments in physics follow the same principles as ones which are used to model asset returns and goods prices. — fdrake
I don't see what this has to do with anything else. This is just obfuscation. For example:So, for base rates: if you're healthy and don't smoke, your probability of smoking is a downward adjustment from the base rate - but still pretty close to it. P(you get cancer) is proportional to P(you get cancer given base rate)*P(base rate). In a similar manner, P(you commit a crime given that you're in a ghetto) is proportional to P(you live in a ghetto given you commit a crime)*P(crime base rate). I'm not conflating 'different notions of statistics' at all - you're ignorant of how to manipulate probabilities. If you were a mine worker, your probability of lung cancer would be an upwards adjustment of the base rate. — fdrake
No, it doesn't mean it IS that, but it can be modelled as that. That's a big big difference. The map is not the territory. I'm interested to get to know the territory, not approximations on the map.You getting cancer given that you're healthy is (generates, really) exactly the same type of random variable as you getting cancer. — fdrake
Yeah I want to flip the tables, since there is free will when it comes to human behaviour, hence why there is moral agency and responsibility for one's actions.Supplementary post: declaring that some statistics don't apply to individuals is essentially flipping the table we're sitting around to discuss this. Every part of the discussion depends on properties of aggregates of people - specific statistics - and their relationship to each-other. — fdrake
No, it doesn't mean it IS that, but it can be modelled as that. That's a big big difference. The map is not the territory. I'm interested to get to know the territory, not approximations on the map.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.