Also thanks, it's a good article.

No one is entitled to a grossly excessive share of overall wealth, like 99%. No one could have participated in society to such a great extent that that should be their reward. No one could have truly earned that much. And if you disagree, then I think that you're due a reevaluation. — Sapientia

So this is not a mathematical and scientific question that must be decided by actually looking at what the facts happen to be, it's something you decided a priori? :s

Hey Agustino...

How does the fact that not everyone has the same ability factor into your notion that everyone has the same opportunity to become wealthy via starting a business?

Marx would say it is false that the wealthiest have created the wealth, since in fact they have created the wealth with the assistance of several workers.
Another problem with this argument is that though what entrepreneurs create must be somewhat useful, or at least seemingly somewhat useful, entrepreneurs ultimately put their own profitability above the lives and personhoods of individual citizens - capitalism, in other words, may objectify the worker.
This is not to say that capitalism should be abolished - indeed, it is good for keeping check on governments - but wealth inequality at a certain level is definitely an issue.

Hey Agustino...

How does the fact that not everyone has the same ability factor into your notion that everyone has the same opportunity to become wealthy via starting a business? — creativesoul

Well, if everyone had the same ability, then everyone would be starting the same businesses, and nobody would be rich :P

A business is just an activity which provides value to society. Pretty much everyone can start a business if they spend their time developing a skill/craft that is useful to society. The more useful it is, the more money they will make. Most businesses in the US, for example, have 0 employees (80% to be more exact). They're just a one-person business.

The main problem is that most people are not reared to start businesses - you're told go to college, get a job. You're not told figure out how you can be of value to society and start a business.

Getting a job is well-respected, but many people who have a job are really wasting society's time and provide little of value, little of what's needed. So that self-respect prevents people from understanding that they're actually NOT doing what they should be doing at all, which is provide value to society.

For example, say someone is a cashier at the supermarket. That's a job that will be low paid, since we don't really need it. Supermarkets are getting better and better at eliminating those workers, and replacing them with technology. If someone holds that job and feels proud that they're earning their own money, etc., they're really wasting everyone's time. They ought to spend that time looking to learn something that can be of greater use to society.

There is a problem in our society with thinking that you need to be a genius etc. to start and run a successful business. That's not true, you just need to provide something of value. But people aren't taught to think in these terms. They're taught to think in terms of earning x/hour. But that's irrelevant. What's relevant is not earnings, but how much value is provided and at what scale. If you provide value to millions of people, well, sooner or later, you will be a millionaire. It's almost unavoidable.

So people have this idea that money comes from working a job (false) instead of money comes from providing something valuable. If they don't get out of that mindset they can't advance. Then they don't understand why they're poor - they think they have to work harder, spend more hours, etc. Another untruth. They just have to find a way to provide something valuable.

Marx would say it is false that the wealthiest have created the wealth, since in fact they have created the wealth with the assistance of several workers. — ivans

In some cases in the industrial revolution sure. But not so much right now in the West. That, however, is still largely the case in developing countries.

Also there are many cases like this:

Another example. Suppose I am an engineer and independent contractor working on ship engines. I specialise in a particularly new class of ships that many world transportation companies are acquiring. There are very few people who specialise in this ship. Something goes wrong in one of those ships, and it no longer functions to transport the goods. My client moves $6,000,000 worth of goods each day using that ship (maybe those are much needed medicines, which save lives). So if he doesn't get me to fix it, then he (and all of society which depends on those goods) will lose $6,000,000/day. Is it fair that I am paid $600,000 for 10 hours of work? — Agustino

So this is not a mathematical and scientific question that must be decided by actually looking at what the facts happen to be, it's something you decided a priori? — Agustino

No, I've considered the facts, and I remain unable to conceive of a situation like that I described. Even Superman wouldn't deserve such a high percentage, let alone someone of a much lesser stature. That's insane.

No, I've considered the facts, and I remain unable to conceive of a situation like that I described. Even Superman wouldn't deserve such a high percentage, let alone someone of a much lesser stature. That's insane. — Sapientia

If I secure a $5 billion dollar contract for any producer, do I deserve, say, $20 million bonus?

No.

No. — Sapientia

:s Why not? I just greatly helped an important economic player to spread his goods and services and value through society. And it's $5 billion worth of goods. Maybe those are much needed medicines, etc.

Did you forget that money is simply an estimation of value added?

How does the fact that not everyone has the same ability factor into your notion that everyone has the same opportunity to become wealthy via starting a business?
— creativesoul
Well, if everyone had the same ability, then everyone would be starting the same businesses, and nobody would be rich — Agustino

So, it doesn't...

It ought. Not everyone has the same ability. No one has a choice in the socio-economic situation they're born into, their cognitive ability, or their first worldview. We create the rules that are the socio-economic landscape. There is no excuse for not creating one which provides everyone with an opportunity to live a comfortable life.

Earlier you mentioned 'value'. Pure economic language isn't suited for moral discourse. You used the example of grocery store clerks (cashiers). You framed the job in terms of adding no value. Bullshit. I value the conversation.

There is no excuse for not creating one which provides everyone with an opportunity to live a comfortable life. — creativesoul

I agree, quite obviously.

You framed the job in terms of adding no value. Bullshit. I value the conversation. — creativesoul

Right, it's really adding very little value, hence why the low pay. You may value conversations, but how much value does it add to you? Probably not much. You could do without.

Right, it's really adding very little value, hence why the low pay. You may value conversations, but how much value does it add to you? Probably not much. You could do without. — Agustino

You're missing the point. Value, in economic terms, is ill-conceived.

We could do without almost all of what capitalism has afforded us. In fact, it's not hard to make a case that the quality of goods and services has suffered horribly at the hands of those looking to 'add value'...

The problem is that much of wealth creation and distribution is based on luck. In order to gain wealth in a market economy you need to have the conditions to provide that for which there is high demand. Conditions such as talent, health, intelligence, and suitable environment. These conditions are largely a matter of luck. If you think it is ok for the unlucky to die of hunger while the lucky have billions you need Jesus.

You're missing the point. Value, in economic terms, is ill-conceived. — creativesoul

I disagree.

We could do without almost all of what capitalism has afforded us. — creativesoul

Yeah, and have very difficult lives, sure.

In fact, it's not hard to make a case that the quality of goods and services has suffered horribly at the hands of those looking to 'add value'... — creativesoul

I think that quite the contrary, services are generally getting better and more easily available. Just look even 10 years ago. Public services on the other hand seem to be getting worse.

The problem is that much of wealth creation and distribution is based on luck. — litewave

To a certain extent. That's true, for example, if you're born in some African tribe in the middle of nowhere. But on the other hand if you're born in the West, even if you're born poor (unless you're born like extremely poor), you can definitely still contribute to wealth creation and even become rich.

have the conditions to provide that for which there is high demand. — litewave

Demand is generally created, it doesn't pre-exist the supply so to speak.

Conditions such as talent, health, intelligence, and suitable environment. — litewave

Sure health is definitely needed, and a certain degree of intelligence helps too (though you don't necessarily need to be super smart, just not dumb). Talent? Not so much. Suitable environment? To a certain extent, once again. If you're born in extreme poverty in Africa, then yes, it would be extremely difficult and unlikely for you to become rich, even if you wanted to.

To a certain extent. — Agustino

So what is the most important factor in getting wealth? Willingness to work hard? For that you need to have sufficient mental or physical energy - and how do you create that? Even that seems to be a matter of luck, in the final analysis.

So what is the most important factor in getting wealth? — litewave

Creating small value on a very large scale, or creating high value on a small scale, or creating high value on a very large scale. So the most important factors are value-creation and scale. Production and distribution.

Willingness to work hard? — litewave

That's important, but not enough. You have to work smart, not necessarily hard. One can take a hammer to cut a tree for example, and hammer at the tree the whole day and still not cut it. While someone else takes a saw and cuts the tree. And yet another may find an even more efficient way to cut it.

For that you need to have sufficient mental or physical energy - and how do you create that? — litewave

Assuming that you have no underlying health problems, then moral education and psychological training can help. Adopting the right mindset can help. Exercise, fitness, etc. All these things. You really have to build a life around it.

However, I will say that the way I spoke about above is a difficult path to walk to become wealthy. The easy way is to get involved in corruption with the government. And you can do it if you don't have moral values, are determined to do it, and put yourself in the right place. Stealing and appropriating from others is always less difficult than creating value yourself.

Even that seems to be a matter of luck, in the final analysis. — litewave

There is always a certain element of givenness, and gift in any sort of achievement. Wealth can be a gift from God for some, and a curse for others, who don't have the level of moral development required to handle it.

That's important, but not enough. You have to work smart, not necessarily hard. — Agustino

So you need intelligence or talent - luck. You need the right ideas or insights to occur to you - luck.

Assuming that you have no underlying health problems, then moral education and psychological training can help. Adopting the right mindset can help. Exercise, fitness, etc. All these things. You really have to build a life around it. — Agustino

You need to get the education or training and have the ability to absorb it - luck. You need to have the impulse and ability to adopt the right mindset - luck. You need to have the impulse to exercise and the ability/energy to persevere in it - luck.

In short, you need to be lucky.

However, I will say that the way I spoke about above is a difficult path to walk to become wealthy. The easy way is to get involved in corruption with the government. And you can do it if you don't have moral values, are determined to do it, and put yourself in the right place. Stealing and appropriating from others is always less difficult than creating value yourself. — Agustino

Of course, but I didn't even think about that. Even in an uncorrupted market economy you need to be lucky in order to get wealth. And it is morally not ok for the unlucky to die in the streets while the lucky enjoy lavish lifestyles.

You need the right ideas or insights to occur to you - luck. — litewave

It's not really luck, you just need to be concerned about these things and spend a long time thinking about them and working on them.

Of course, but I didn't even think about that. Even in an uncorrupted market economy you need to be lucky in order to get wealth. And it is morally not ok for the unlucky to die in the streets while the lucky enjoy lavish lifestyles. — litewave

Well, if you put it that way, you need to be lucky to even be born :s . But now you're exaggerating the notion as if the decisions you take don't play a role at all.

You need to get the education or training and have the ability to absorb it - luck. You need to have the impulse and ability to adopt the right mindset - luck. You need to have the impulse to exercise and the ability/energy to persevere in it - luck. — litewave

Those aren't really matters of luck, apart from, to a certain extent, education. But you can largely educate yourself - that's what you have to do in fact. That's a decision you can take provided you have access to a library.

It's not really luck, you just need to be concerned about these things and spend a long time thinking about them and working on them. — Agustino

You need the impulse to be concerned about these things, think about them, work on them, and the ability to successfully carry out and sustain these activities - luck.

Well, if you put it that way, you need to be lucky to even be born :s . — Agustino

Of course. No one creates themselves. Not even God. :)

But now you're exaggerating the notion as if the decisions you take don't play a role at all. — Agustino

You see, it all boils down to the illusion and golden calf of (especially) the Western civilization - libertarian free will. By significantly separating the individual from the rest of reality, we get the illusion that the individual is in some sense ultimately independent and in control of his physical or mental actions. On the other hand, this separation "unleashes" the individual - it enables the individual to be active and creative and thus create wealth. So we need the market system that unleashes individuals but we also need a system of redistribution of wealth in order to help the unlucky ones.

Helping the unlucky ones is a moral imperative that some believe comes from God, but I think it can also be explained by a naturally evolved feeling of empathy. This feeling evolved - that is, was selected for - because it was useful for the survival and reproduction of beings, in that it facilitates social bonds and cooperation and, more generally, the ability of mental integration/synthesis. Without helping the unlucky ones the social system becomes strained and fragmented and eventually even the lucky ones lose.

You see, it all boils down to the illusion and golden calf of (especially) the Western civilization - libertarian free will. By significantly separating the individual from the rest of reality, we get the illusion that the individual is in some sense ultimately independent and in control of his physical or mental actions. On the other hand, this separation "unleashes" the individual - it enables the individual to be active and creative and thus create wealth. So we need the market system that unleashes individuals but we also need a system of redistribution of wealth in order to help the unlucky ones.

Helping the unlucky ones is a moral imperative that some believe comes from God, but I think it can also be explained by a naturally evolved feeling of empathy. This feeling evolved - that is, was selected for - because it was useful for the survival and reproduction of beings, in that it facilitates social bonds and cooperation and, more generally, the ability of mental integration/synthesis. Without helping the unlucky ones the social system becomes strained and fragmented and eventually even the lucky ones lose. — litewave

Riiight, well apart from the nonsense you're speaking with regards to free will, I pretty much agree with everything else about helping the unlucky ones who cannot help themselves as you say.

Riiight, well apart from the nonsense you're speaking with regards to free will, I pretty much agree with everything else about helping the unlucky ones who cannot help themselves as you say. — Agustino

In order to do a supposedly freely willed action, whether physical or mental, you need an impulse or intention to do the action. But you can't freely create that impulse - or even if you can, you need another impulse to create it, etc.

But you can't freely create that impulse - or even if you can, you need another impulse to create it, etc. — litewave

:s Maybe that "impulse" is just who I am. I am part of the causal chain afterall. Determinism and free will are not incompatible.

:s Maybe that "impulse" is just who I am. I am part of the causal chain afterall. Determinism and free will are not incompatible. — Agustino

Ok but since you don't create yourself, even the actions that are caused by this impulse are ultimately caused by something you have not created. I don't argue against compatibilist free will but against libertarian free will. The concept of libertarian free will, whether articulated or just felt, is the principal driving force of individualism because it ascribes to the individual ultimate control (and responsibility) for his actions.

Ok but since you don't create yourself, even the actions that are caused by this impulse are ultimately caused by something you have not created. I don't argue against compatibilist free will but against libertarian free will. The concept of libertarian free will, whether articulated or just felt, is the principal driving force of individualism because it ascribes to the individual ultimate control (and responsibility) for his actions. — litewave

So what if I don't create myself? It doesn't follow that once created I don't have free will.

The concept of libertarian free will, whether articulated or just felt, is the principal driving force of individualism because it ascribes to the individual ultimate control (and responsibility) for his actions. — litewave

Well, actually, the individual does have a very large degree of control over his actions. What he doesn't have as much control over is his pool of possible choices. But within that pool of possible choices, he does have control. In practice, this means that he has control over virtually all his actions.

So what if I don't create myself? It doesn't follow that once created I don't have free will. — Agustino

What follows is that all your actions are ultimately determined by that which you have not freely willed. So they are a matter of luck.

Well, actually, the individual does have a very large degree of control over his actions. — Agustino

The individual can have control in the sense that his impulses (intentions, desires...) can cause actions that bring him satisfaction. But in the ultimate sense, the individual has no control at all.

What follows is that all your actions are ultimately determined by that which you have not freely willed. So they are a matter of luck. — litewave

:s

I am created by someone else. Once created I have the FREE CHOICE between A and B. I choose one of them, and therefore end where I end up. So where I end up was, to the degree that I had a choice between A and B - determined by ME and not by luck. If you cannot see this, I suggest you think about it more carefully.

If you want, the fact that I am given choices A and B, and not C, D, E, etc. is a matter of luck. But what I do with the choices I'm given, that's up to me, and most definitely not a matter of luck.

But in the ultimate sense, the individual has no control at all. — litewave

Then this ultimate sense is bullshit.

Again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. An individual's choice is part of the causal chain. The universe is not FATALISTIC. There is a big big difference between determinism and fatalism. The individual isn't destined by absolute necessity to X or Y particular things.

I am created by someone else. Once created I have the FREE CHOICE between A and B. I choose one of them, and therefore end where I end up. — Agustino

Your choice is caused by your impulses and since you can't choose your impulses, your choice is caused by something you have not chosen. In this sense it is not free, see?

An individual's choice is part of the causal chain. The universe is not FATALISTIC. There is a big big difference between determinism and fatalism. The individual isn't destined by absolute necessity to X or Y particular things. — Agustino

The individual is destined by his impulses, which he has not chosen.

Value, when rendered in monetary terms, is profit based. What's valuable is not.

Economic jargon is far too often used as a means to justify knowingly causing quantifiable harm to millions upon millions of people.