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? :sNo 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
Well, if everyone had the same ability, then everyone would be starting the same businesses, and nobody would be rich :PHey 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
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.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
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
If I secure a $5 billion dollar contract for any producer, do I deserve, say, $20 million bonus?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
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
I agree, quite obviously.There is no excuse for not creating one which provides everyone with an opportunity to live a comfortable life. — 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.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. — Agustino
I disagree.You're missing the point. Value, in economic terms, is ill-conceived. — creativesoul
Yeah, and have very difficult lives, sure.We could do without almost all of what capitalism has afforded us. — 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.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
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.The problem is that much of wealth creation and distribution is based on luck. — litewave
Demand is generally created, it doesn't pre-exist the supply so to speak.have the conditions to provide that for which there is high demand. — 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.Conditions such as talent, health, intelligence, and suitable environment. — 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.So what is the most important factor in getting wealth? — 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.Willingness to work hard? — 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.For that you need to have sufficient mental or physical energy - and how do you create that? — 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.Even that seems to be a matter of luck, in the final analysis. — litewave
That's important, but not enough. You have to work smart, not necessarily hard. — Agustino
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
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
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.You need the right ideas or insights to occur to you - luck. — 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.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
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.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
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
Well, if you put it that way, you need to be lucky to even be born :s . — Agustino
But now you're exaggerating the notion as if the decisions you take don't play a role at all. — Agustino
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.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. — Agustino
: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
So what if I don't create myself? It doesn't follow that once created I don't have free will.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
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.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. — Agustino
Well, actually, the individual does have a very large degree of control over his actions. — Agustino
:sWhat 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
Then this ultimate sense is bullshit.But in the ultimate sense, the individual has no control at all. — litewave
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
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
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.