I agree with Wayfarer, you were certainly marked fairly, your essay has quite a few shortcomings.

"In this essay I will first start by outlining and explaining what problem Scottish philosopher David Hume encountered with respect to inductive inference and how it cannot be rectified. I will then explain what the importance of this problem is and then state a possible solution to the problem and why this solution does not work.

Point Number 1: No "I"s your introduction looks childish and unprofessional. You're also beating around the bush too much and ignoring the audience you're writing for. You're not writing for your grandfather who doesn't know philosophy. Here's an improvement:

"This paper outlines David Hume's problem of induction and investigates its historical relevance. A promissing solution is assessed and found to be inadequate."

That's it. That should be your introduction. See how sexy and professional it is? :D

Next:

Although the earliest testimony of the problem of induction is dated as early as 4th century BC by the sceptical school known as Pyrrhonism (Ainslie & Donald 2003 p. 252) (really? is this true? I don't remember finding the problem of induction outlined in Sextus, perhaps you should rephrase, even though you have a citation there) , it wasn’t until the 18th century that David Hume conceived of it in consolidated form in the work known as “An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding” Should be "A Treatise Of Human Nature", which was written before the Enquiry - stuff like this suggests that you don't know that one was written before the other, and you got your knowledge of Hume from Wikipedia .

I would rephrase this entire section as:

"Skeptical doubts with regards to the certainty provided by inductive reasoning existed ever since the Ancient Greek Skeptics, (please note how I avoided saying known as the Pyrrhonists - the person reading this is not a retard, he knows this already, don't waste his time.) the Pyrrhonists. Nevertheless, it was only with Hume that this skepticism manifested in the form of actively doubting the results of scientific enquiry.

When encountering inductive uncertainty, the Pyrrhonists would resort to époche, suspension of judgement, instead of continual doubt (cite Sextus). In other words, logical possibility was not seen as a ground for doubting. A Pyrrhonist would not doubt that the sun would rise tomorrow merely because it was logically possible that it won't. It is only with Réne Descartes and his successors, including David Hume, that what constitutes knowledge was re-evaluated, and hence more global forms of skeptical doubt became possible "

The above paragraph shows that you know how to situate Hume within the skeptical tradition and also how he is positioned and influenced by Descartes, as one of his immediate predecessors. It also shows that you're thinking critically about induction and the problems raised by Hume, and not just parroting what others say.

In an essay, it's okay to acknowledge that so and so said this, but you must engage with that critically.

The rest of your essay should have similar corrections. But you get the idea now hopefully.

You need to adopt a professional and scientific way of writing. Read scientific articles and adopt that style. For example:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0c32/d622a2537a5a064f410ff5f7ddb2905177b3.pdf

And also start thinking of yourself as a genius or expert on the topic. That will help you adopt the right style.



In this work, Hume (1748) elicits the concept of “The Principle of Uniformity of Nature”, which is used to justify inductive reason and scientific research. The Principle of Uniformity of Nature says that there is a direction that nature will continue on uniformly over time. Moreover, induction alone depends upon uniformity because it is what grants us to move from the particular to the general in terms of principles and concepts. However, if induction alone depends upon the uniformity of nature then the uniformity itself is not able to depend upon inductive reasoning. This is the problem Hume uncovers with respect to inductive inference.


The importance of this problem is illustrated in the fact that up until Hume, universal truths relied on particular instances of observations (of which Hume showed cannot logically be proved). This was the case for thousands of years where Europeans used to believe that there were only ever white swans in existence until they first sailed to Western Australia where they encountered black swans (Taleb & Nassim 2007 p. 13 para. 1). This illustrates the fact that however many thousands of times any particular instance occurs, it does not necessitate the possibility of it being otherwise. Knowledge alone has allowed us to put into perspective the sort of justification we might have in deducing universal conclusions from particular instances of our everyday lives. In fact, in Hume’s work he proposes there are two main ways in which we as people can interpret an idea. Firstly, in which one looks for “matters of fact” that depend upon objectivity or experience. Secondly, in which one looks to see whether there is to be found a “relation of ideas”, which is an implicit knowledge such as that found in mathematics or logic. Hume says in his final sentence of the book that if one cannot find either of those two modes of interpretation of ideas then one should “commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”(Hume 1748 p.173).


The totality of what science investigates is predicated upon a principle that is based on a causal expectation that tomorrow will be like today and that today will be like yesterday. If one doesn’t rely on the uniformity of nature then one cannot rely on scientific experimentation because if the future does not resemble the past then any sort of asset of truth we may have is subject to change and therefore today’s truth could be tomorrow’s mistake. In this scenario, it would not be possible to know logic or truth. This is the problem that cannot be able to be legitimized or justified empirically. There is also no possibility of a priori proof either since the concept is empirical in nature and not rational. Its central thesis is to provide an account for how events relate to one another objectively and can never be proved by the observation itself.


A well-known intellectual athlete of logical positivism, A. J. Ayer, gives credence to the notion that our logical uncertainty of induction is owed in great part to Hume (Ayers 1946 p. 37 para. 2). Indeed there is cause to be uncertain, as explained previously. Although, one way in which one could seem to potentially overcome the dilemma Hume encountered is to "adopt a rationalist view, according to which induction can after all be justified on a purely a priori basis" (Bonjour 1998 p.200 para. 2). BonJour (1998) states that “anything known a priori must be necessary, true in all possible worlds, since a priori evidence, being independent of any empirical input from the actual world, could not distinguish one possible world from another.”(p.208 para. 4). Given then that a priori propositions are fundamentally necessary, what follows is that every possible world which share attributes to our world, is a world in which the truth makes it highly probable that the corresponding conclusion is true. Therefore, the notion that the future will resemble the past indicates that such a change would occur by “sheer coincidence or chance”. This clearly indicates that chaos in nature would not be not possible. This is highly unlikely because of the truth of our various inductive premises. This concept is conceived to be “probabilistic” and is not based on any knowledge of pattern and consistency. Due to this it converts the notion in to being a posteriori and assumes that it is entirely able to perceive necessarily probabilistic truth a priori that is not based upon concepts of recurrence, pattern and consistency among others.


With these things considered in totality, the problem of induction seems most likely not to be a problem about the outside world so much as it is with the human minds potentials and limitations. It would be safe to infer that Hume did not doubt an external world existed and that there are causal connections inherent within that world and that we indeed have the capacity to formulate representations of such things in our mind. What I believe Hume did doubt however was that the establishment of such things are impossible to be rationally authenticated and made evident, of which I concur with and have provided reasons for in this essay. This therefore means that rational authentication of this kind is inert in proving truth for the most basic matters of existence." — intrapersona

That would be a problem because it's unfair — Sapientia

Why is it unfair?

creates an imbalance — Sapientia

Why is it an imbalance? Would it also be an imbalance if I work more than you? If I produce more than you? If I do something more valuable than you? If I do something at a much larger scale than you? Why or why not?

That would be money in excess of what you've earned — Sapientia

Who decides that and based on what criteria?

could go to those who need it more than you do, and therefore ought to be redistributed. — Sapientia

No, you don't decide how to appropriate the money of other people by force, that is certainly not moral.

It's your burden for a reason. — Sapientia

I can simply reorganize my affairs and still operate legally. If you don't want me to do that, then pass appropriate laws which don't allow for loopholes. Otherwise, why complain?

and you shouldn't be permitted to minimise it without approval from the right people. — Sapientia

Again, this can be at most a legal issue, not a moral one.

At least, not over here. I don't live in North Korea or Syria, and neither do you. Let's keep it real. — Sapientia

I am keeping it real. You have no idea how deep corruption runs in the Eastern European countries. You literarily cannot even begin to imagine - it's totally NOT like UK.

Syria and North Korea aren't just corrupt - their problems there have to do with more serious forms of violent oppression.

Excessive accumulation of money is a problem — Sapientia

Why is it a problem? If I have, say, x1000 what you have, how does that negatively impact you? What impacts you is how much you have, not how much others have relative to you.

How is avoiding (or evading) paying what you owe to society not a problem? — Sapientia

Tax avoidance represents legal arrangements that allow you to minimise your tax burden. Even IF you owe that money to society (and who decides that that is the percentage that you actually owe), it doesn't mean that surrendering control over it to your

The question of morality isn't the same as the question of legality. It may not be immoral to not pay your taxes, depending on the circumstances. For example, if you live in a corrupt country where public money is misused or stolen, or if you can use the money in a better way than the government can for society, then obviously it would not be immoral to avoid paying your taxes.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the few owning the much and the many owning nothing as long as owning nothing isn't a prison or death sentence. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I obviously would agree.

Once enough of the wealth becomes concentrated into so few hands, they get the power to extort everyone else. — VagabondSpectre

That only works in silly games like Monopoly, in real life, unless the people in question are sociopathic or psychopathic, they would not want the workers to be extorted, since that is a breeding ground for rebellion and unrest. I'm sure if a food crisis were to arise, smart business owners would do their best to make sure food is as available as possible in the circumstance for the other workers. The entrepreneur cannot exist without the workers, so doing something that is bad for the workers is ultimately doing something that is bad for oneself as an entrepreneur.

Consider that twitter may be in some ways the single most influential social media that presently exists, and then consider as a corporation twitter has absolute authority to un-verify, ban, block, berate, edit, and manipulate any user and any tweet at any time for any reason. — VagabondSpectre

Doubtful, their user base is declining very rapidly, and they may actually go out of business sometime in the future.

Yes, very good idea. I think most people have striven to do that. — Bitter Crank

From my experience, most people have striven to do well for themselves and for their families, not for society. Those who have striven for society, and have sought to achieve scale doing it are few.

They include some entrepreneurs (though probably not the vast majority), some social workers, some revolutionaries (like Ghandi), etc.

Of course it requires an expenditure of money. Most of money which made my work possible (health education, social services) came from social investment. The non-profit NGO sector is, in general, socially financed. (I don't know about where you live, but in this part of the US, non-profits form a significant sector of the economy.) — Bitter Crank

Yeah, but this social investment means that you are at the hands of others in terms of the work you do. If they cut the financing, your work is put to an end. That's not a good position to be in. It's like in business owning something like an Amazon FBA business - in one day, an Amazon policy change can make your business go from $10 million revenue to 0.

Individual wealth IS measured in dollars, pounds, euros, or some currency; wealth consists of property, cash, and shares. Your talents and potential just don't count as "wealth" in any ordinary usage. Features of your mind are too intangible to count as assets. — Bitter Crank

Why do you consider money to be wealth? Money is a fictive commodity, that's useful just to facilitate trade. It has no use in and of itself. Production of goods and services is what is useful. So if you return to my formula, Wealth = Value x Quantity, then it is controlling those two variables - value, through your skills, knowledge, expertise, technology, etc. and quantity - through distribution/production networks that you control - that wealth consists in. Money by itself, without access either to value or quanity is useless.

It's pretty patronising regardless of whether the addressee is out there somewhere or me. As if the only problem arising from income inequality is envy. — fdrake

:-} That's not what I said. I said envy emerges because certain people, political agitators, tell poor people that they really should be wealthy, but it's because they are exploited that they're not. That breeds envy and hatred. Instead, they should be taught the skills that they need, and encouraged to work, study and learn, since they too can earn more money if that's what they want.

Well, despite that your assumptions are often false for people on minimum wage in America... You're completely wrong about having the same standard of living if everyone's wealth grows. If you're poor, you're disproportionately effected by inflation - which is strongly correlated with economic growth. Your means don't stretch as far when real wages lag inflation (which they have for some time). — fdrake

What's inflation in the US? 2%/year? So they lose approx. $400 (assuming $20,000/annum) in 12 months in buying power assuming wages don't increase. That is approximately 1 week of work or 60 hours. You are right, it is actually quite a bit, so I suppose yes, inflation does impact the poor. So then it's really a bad idea not to try to grow your income.

The fact that you equate societal properties manifesting as changing propensities for individual actions with the possibility and individual responsibility for doing those actions is exactly a symptom of your blindspot for aggregate properties and constraints.

Note that they are soft constraints, society doesn't make your decisions for you, you make decisions in the contexts and communities it generates and is constituted by. — fdrake

Right, so then there is no iron-will necessity of robbing others if you're poor, it's just more of a temptation. Is this what you mean?

Getting rich? For most people, getting or being rich is an idle fantasy or unimportant, and in any case, not a fixation that people should be encouraged to dwell on. Riches are not good for people's morals. — Bitter Crank

It's not about having the most money, it's about doing the most useful work for society that you can do. That requires money to scale and finance your efforts. You seem to have missed all my posts about money being irrelevant to wealth, and wealth being formed of value x quantity of goods/services, where money is just a shadow.

I'm actually quite well off and do contract work in addition to my job, so stop your daft psychologising. It was much better when you were insulting me for things more relevant to the issue. I can appreciate a good 'you don't even know this, you damn fool', not 'you're wrong and i'm better than you so there nyer i have money u jelly lol?'. Even though both are bad form, your standards of insult are slipping man! — fdrake

:s - what's wrong with you, I actually haven't insulted you in that post at all, and especially not about how much money you have. How much money you (or I) have is irrelevant in a discussion which aims to find the truth. If you're from the US, you're probably richer than me anyway. Hopefully, you do realise the "you" there is a hypothetical "you" who is in those circumstances, not you in particular.

If you have money for food, electricity, and the other basic necessities of life, and assuming you have access to healthcare and other necessities, what's the issue? If you had those before everyone's wealth grew, you still have them now, even though relative to them you're poorer. What's the problem there? The only problem may be that you're envious, because there are political agitators who tell you that you should have more, etc

The statement that I was referring to, Agustino, was your statement on the first page, namely that the war against progressive taxation is a good thing. It is not, and neither is gross wealth inequality. — Sapientia

With regards to what is happening in the US, and pretty much everywhere, yes, I do think business taxes should go down.

To truly be against big business is to be against the inherent unfairness at its heart — Sapientia

As far as I'm concerned that unfairness is just corruption and getting in bed with governments. That's how they gain unfair advantages and squish out smaller businesses. Accumulation of money and tax avoidance aren't such big problems in and of themselves. Again, the fact that someone has more money than you doesn't stop you in any way from making your own money - and tax avoidance isn't necessarily immoral, although it is indeed illegal.

So, how do you protect yourself? — Bitter Crank

I told you how. By structuring the deal in such a way such that it's not really feasible that I get cheated (or if I do get cheated, I only lose a small bit). This is achieved by asking for a certain % of the contract upfront (before doing the work), or getting paid along the way such that to continue working you need to receive a certain payment. I certainly don't rely on established legal institutions, nor on my own enforcement squad.

I did get cheated before, and I just don't work with that business ever again, and if anyone asks me about them I say bad things. So it's all about not getting too hurt if such a thing happens, not about entirely preventing it. It doesn't work in corrupt developing nations.

A handful of industrious people like (not mentioning all the well known current rich folks) — Bitter Crank

Yep, exactly.

Cornelius Vanderbilt (Railroads) USA — Bitter Crank

Started out poor.

Richard Branson (Media, Transportation) UK — Bitter Crank

Started out middle class.

John D. Rockefeller (Oil) the world — Bitter Crank

Started out poor.

Andrew Carnegie (Steel) USA — Bitter Crank

Started out poor.

John Jacob Astor (Fur, Real Estate (like... Waldorf Astoria Hotel) USA — Bitter Crank

Started out poor.

The others I haven't heard about or read about much.

Andrew Carnegie wasn't shoveling iron ore into the coke ovens — Bitter Crank

But who learned about the technology, who brought it to the US, who organised production, who risked his capital, who worked as a poor boy his way up, etc.? The steel part came after Carnegie was quite successful in business and investments.

It just isn't possible for one person to invent and develop large industries which produce millions or billions of dollars of income. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did start working on computers in their families garages, but before long they, like other entrepreneurs, had to start hiring people to develop and produce code, pieces of gadgetry, and so on. — Bitter Crank

I agree, but do we need people to organised production? Organised production achieves economies of scale, which are not achieveable by separate labourers, even if they can do the job themselves. Is it unfair, for example, for the entrepreneur to take these economies of scale for himself, allowing the labourers to earn only what they could earn if they were working by themselves?

and to do this you will need to obtain capital, probably first with a loan, then with maybe selling shares. If Big Finance thinks you have the makings of becoming the Bloomberg of Business in Bosnia, Bulgaria, Belarus, and Botswana, they might back you, then you might become rich. — Bitter Crank

That might work like that in the US, but here most successful businessmen have bootstrapped their operations (excluding the ones who made their wealth through corruption and theft with the government, which are a lot of them).

At some point you will have to start hiring other people to sit at desks, — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's true.

answer phones and emails — Bitter Crank

I already have to do that, because it's not like business comes automatically to you - you need to reach out and find it.

You are too wrapped up in the idea of the Glorious Solitary Knight of Commerce to see that wealth is created socially by dozens, hundreds, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of people working to produce wealth. And then, in order for you to become very, very rich, you have to expropriate a slice of the value all those people created, and keep it for yourself. — Bitter Crank

Okay but go back to my previous point. So say I start a web development company. I will hire people, but I won't hire jack-of-all-trades like myself. I will hire, for example, an HTML/CSS expert, a javascript expert, a backend/PHP expert, a database expert, a Wordpress expert, a Node JS expert etc. etc. and put them to work. Now they will do the work a lot faster since they are experts at each individual component. They can probably do each individual component of the project much faster (and better) than I can.

So they are going to earn a fair amount for their individual work - but I will take for myself all the benefits that emerge from me having brought them together right? Any economies of scale, I will take for myself, since that was my work, to bring them together, and set the whole system up. So if they can finish projects faster than I can alone, then anything extra I will take. Isn't that fair?

The armed services of the country you are working in are paid to make sure your employees do not turn on you and seize your business services goldmine (expropriating the expropriators). — Bitter Crank

It's very complicated to do that, because specialisation means typically one person does just one small bit. These actual constraints are a lot more important than the legal ones here.

The Courts are there to make sure that your patents, trademarks, and contracts are protected. — Bitter Crank

Forget it, if I have to rely on the courts or government for anything, including ensuring I get paid, then I'm dead here. I have to rely on payment agreements, contracts, etc. to make sure that I get paid. That doesn't mean courts will ever enforce them, what I mean is... For example, asking for a certain percentage upfront, getting paid along the way, and other such tactics. You have to get a feel for whether people will cheat you or not here - typically it's good to leave some work for the future also, since if they have to keep working with you, less likely that you get cheated.

do you still call yourself a socialist? — Sapientia

I am left-leaning in terms of my economics, sure. But not with regards to entrepreneurship and private ownership. I am a distributist in many regards.

One way of doing that is through progressive taxation, which, in this discussion, you've strongly rejected. — Sapientia

Financial speculation and trading stocks, etc. is only a way for rich people to maintain their wealth and avoid having inflation eat it up - once they are already rich. Having said that, I am actually opposed to financial speculation since it doesn't produce anything useful. So I wouldn't mind taxing PROFITS (definitely at least short-term profits) from that at 90%. — Agustino

Read the above. Also you misinterpret my position. I am against big business, which means multinational corporations, which seek to control the government and enact laws that prevent competition and protect them. I'm not against entrepreneurial endeavours.

Are you familiar with phrase, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? — Sapientia

Yes, but I like Stalin's rephrasing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work"

Are you familiar with the theory of the exploitation of labour, of surplus capital, and so on? — Sapientia

Yes. I disagree for the reason outlined in my previous post, right above you.

Not so long ago, you claimed to be in favour of restraining, rather than strengthening big business. — Sapientia

Yes - I am entirely for restraining non-entrepreneurial endeavours which seek to stifle competition and get in bed with the government.

Not even wrong. What matters is the pattern of wealth distribution. You don't seem to want to consider aggregate effects at all. Inequality is a property of an income distribution, you can see its effects over communities and how people in those communities live their lives and what they are likely to be able to do with them. Crime obviously has an impact here. — fdrake

You haven't addressed the question...

The individual becoming wealthy is made less likely through inequality, inequality scales with poverty, crime, poor social mobility... I had a lot of details on this in the mega-post I made at the start. — fdrake

I know that's what you claim, but for example, most billionaires are self-made. Many of them come from among the poor too. That's stats, you know, the stuff you like.

In addition, how many amongst the poor buy cigarettes and alcohol even though they don't have sufficient money for food? There's many such people out there. Do they have no responsibility for the continuation of their poverty?

But what it actually does (see the papers I linked in the first post) is entrench patterns of inequality, people without much before have proportionally less when an economy grows. — fdrake

Yeah so what? Of course if everyone's wealth grows, and you don't do anything to grow yours, you will remain RELATIVELY poor. But relative poverty is not of interest to me. If you have money for food, electricity, and the other basic necessities of life, and assuming you have access to healthcare and other necessities, what's the issue? If you had those before everyone's wealth grew, you still have them now, even though relative to them you're poorer. What's the problem there? The only problem may be that you're envious, because there are political agitators who tell you that you should have more, etc.

We should focus on providing that bare minimum for everyone, not more. If you want more, you have to work for it.

Why is it so difficult for you to consider the aggregate properties and changes in circumstance suggested by an income distribution? — fdrake

I don't believe in stats, I believe in people.

You're telling stories about people while eliding the things that affect their average livelihood, free time, propensity to commit and be a victim of crime, greater exposure to risks due to an inability to save money... — fdrake

So if I am poor, is it not a moral choice whether I steal or not? Am I not responsible for stealing? Or what's the matter here? And what does all this have to do with the ability to become wealthy? :s

You're exactly like the people here. Seems like you guys don't understand how the market works... For example:

Here are some issues: 1. Businesses need startup capital and people need to eat. If you're not making money fast enough to save up for your bills, food, and the capital you need to start up your business, then you can't no matter how entrepreneurially talented you are. 2. The capitalist argument you present either ignores the fact that he is now exploiting his former peers or insists that the his exploitation of others is not immoral, but a reward. 3. It still doesn't address how much of his capital came from exploited workers or how the rarest resources often are stolen from indigenous peoples. The theoretical capitalist argument you're presenting, again, either ignores that or considers it his rewards. Both of these are problematic.
It does address this self-made-man vision. It says that this self-made-man isn't built from the ground up. He's climbed on the backs of other workers and indigenous peoples to get where he is. He climbs those people and asks those he's standing on why they aren't also on ladders like he is, unaware of the fact that there is no ladder. — Takarov

(1) is entirely false. Many businesses don't need a startup capital, or if they do it is very small, or you can otherwise obtain it by working the business yourself before you hire others. There's also a ton of arbitrage opportunities always around for making a startup capital.

(2) Employing others isn't exploitation since the job of organising production requires effort, knowledge and expertise and it must also be rewarded, even though it doesn't actually produce a product - it's still necessary to achieve that production on a greater level and obtain, for example, economies of scale.

(3) That may be true, but it's unavoidable within our economies. Whatever you do, even if you are an employee, you're basically exploiting resources stolen from 3rd world countries.

Also, there is some strange idea going around in most people's minds that you need lots of capital to start a business, or that you need investors, etc. :s I find this idea very strange. It's certainly possible to start with almost no money, without loans, and without any other funding, and then grow organically, or get funding once you're already earning to supplement your growth. In fact, this is the way most successful entrepreneurs start... literarily. I can actually think of few successful entrepreneurs who started with large investments, loans, or capital on hand.

So you're down with the idea that social mobility is impeded by inequality. — fdrake

No, I'm not down with that idea except in the case of people who are really really poor. I asked you before, how does someone having more money than me prohibit me from becoming wealthy?

Inequality makes crime more likely — fdrake

Right, what does this have to do with the individual becoming wealthy which is the topic, granting that we were discussing social mobility?

it entrenches poverty by locking people out of the benefits of economic growth — fdrake

What benefits? What's the relationship between these benefits and becoming wealthy?

or other things which can generate greater income — fdrake

What things? How?

Before you were upset that I was going off-topic with explaining to you what wealth actually is. But it seems you still don't distinguish between wealth and money for that matter, or understand how wealth is generated (and therefore you think someone having more money than you stops you from being wealthy).

Because inequality makes it a lot less likely that someone is able to do those things! — fdrake

The harder it is, the greater the accomplishment of succeeding!

And actually, I don't think inequality has anything to do with someone being able to do this, granted they are in the circumstances I've outlined above. Why does it matter someone has more money than me? Again, go back to the wealth equation. The additional money isn't of much help to him or her unless he or she knows what to do with it.

The fact that it's possible doesn't really say anything about inequality though. — fdrake

Why is inequality a problem if you have the means to rise up through your own intelligence and efforts? :s

since they had access to education, hot water and electricity. — fdrake

Yes, they also had access to basic education, even if not higher education, and also any additional education they need through the internet, libraries, etc.

They can work 2 jobs, and I'm sure there's still some spare time at night 1-2 hours to study. They can then work to cut their costs - no drinking, no cigarettes, no drugs, just the bare essentials of life. It's possible actually to live with very little money if you are a bit of a Spartan. Do that for 5 years, and you'll have enough knowledge to change to better-paid jobs, or otherwise start a business or work as self-employed. Why is that path that unthinkable for you?

Many have done it. Here's an example.

I don't see the difference between what you're saying and 'if everyone was just in the situation I was in, everything would be OK, therefore it's the poor's fault that they are poor'. — fdrake

:-d It's quite tiring talking when you don't bother to read and take in what I've said.

I can see how those people need external help in other areas of the world — Agustino

(not in the West - refering to really poor people, who don't have access to schooling, electricity, hot water, etc.)

Well yeah in the West this should really be no problem. The poorest in the West are nothing like the poorest in other parts of the world, who don't even have access to basic education, electricity, hot water etc. I can see how those people need external help in other areas of the world, but those people in the West? :s Really? They can't open their computers, go to libraries, etc. to find the knowledge they need?

I'm not part of the 1%, I'm middle class, maybe middle-upper class where I'm from. In the West I'd be considered poor or bottom levels of middle class at most. So why is it that someone like me can study and learn, and find all the material I need, and you people in the West can't? And all this while working too.

Really? What access to them do the 99% have? Besides their jobs. — fdrake

Starting a business? :s

I don't think this is relevant to inequality. — fdrake

No, but it was dealing with your mistaken notion that the 99% don't have access to wealth generation mechanisms.

How did the court hearing go?

The important thing is that a typical person will not have access to these money amplification effects, so they cannot benefit from them. — fdrake

Wealth isn't simply money. Wealth = Value x Quantity of Goods or Services Sold. I can have no money for example, but if I control a valuable service or product, I can sell it and make the money I don't have in no time. So just because the money isn't currently in my pocket, would it follow that I'm not wealthy in the above scenario?

If I'm the only person in the world who knows how to fix a specific component of specific type of ship's engines without which those particular ships can only move at 60% of their normal speed, but I have no money, do you reckon that's a problem? No, I can easily earn even $50,000/hour. So I am wealthy, even if I don't have money, because it's not money that makes you wealthy. It's your control over the above equation.

So you are wealthy either if you control a distribution network that can pump out a large volume of products/services quickly, or alternatively, you have an extremely valuable product/service as in the ship example I gave above. In these terms, money is a shadow. So wealth is the area under a value - quantity graph.

Employees tend to think of wealth in terms of money, but that's not an efficient way to think about it. It won't help you increase it. Usually, most employees have a low value - low quantity equations, hence why they don't earn a lot of money either. And they can't earn more unless they alter the equation. As I said before, money is a shadow, not the real thing.

In capitalist societies covert as opposed to apparent power seems to, by and large, be associated mostly with possession of wealth. — Janus

Really? I don't think so, control over the public opinion is the source of power in democracies.

The significant sums of money aren't contained in the two markets which dwarf all goods production and services many times over? — fdrake

No - those are repeated transactions using mostly the same pool of money.

The disjunction between the production of goods and services and the amount of money flowing around shows that production and services have a smaller impact on money flow than the exchange of securities. — fdrake

Money flows around just to facilitate production of goods and services for the most part - there's also pure financial speculation.

What conception of wealth are you using then? — fdrake

I already said that wealth is the production of goods and services.

it is now is a good thing or a bad thing. — fdrake

I think it's neither, but people make it so.

This would seem to be a difficult thing to determine. Is Bill Gates more powerful than Rupert Murdoch? Does the degree of power, and kind of power, one possesses, depend on where one's wealth is invested as much as the extent of that wealth? Could Bill gates, for example, buy out Rupert Murdoch and appropriate the power the latter presumably wields via whatever control he exercises of the news media he owns? — Janus

I think power is only to a certain degree financial. Mostly power comes in the form of controlling important decision makers through different means, whether political, economic or even militarily.

Financial power is irrelevant in the face of political power for example. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia, and in one day his company was bankrupted and he was thrown in jail. Financial power only works if something is for sale.

Didn't know that about the Forex market, nice. How does it change things? — fdrake

Financial markets don't "generate wealth". Comparing the world's GDP with the volume of transactions on financial markets is meaningless. If I, using entity A, sell $300 billion to entity B (which is also owned by me), and then entity B sells $300 billion back to entity A that counts as $600 billion worth of trading in terms of volume. What does that have to do with how much entity A and entity B produce (which does impact GDP)?

I don't think I implied much about how people get rich. — fdrake

You talked about the generation of wealth though.

What I care about is what makes money flow around, apparently this is the Forex Market then the Credit market. — fdrake

Those are tools though. Money can flow for different reasons, such as avoiding taxation, getting ready to do business with another country, etc.

Companies can also sell their shares to generate wealth, the credit market is implicated in business start ups too (most of which fail, as was already pointed out). — fdrake

They don't generate wealth, they generate capital when selling their stock. Capital isn't the same as wealth.

Where is the real money? What does 'real money' mean? — fdrake

Significant sums of money.

Financial speculation generates no wealth, but the credit market is the second biggest, and the first biggest contains currency speculation and exchange. What conception of wealth are you working with? — fdrake

Wealth = production + services

This paragraph is dataless assertion anyway. — fdrake

What data do you want? Take a copy of Forbes for example, and tally up how many billionaires made their fortune from starting a business and how many from the financial markets.

You've provided mostly dataless counterpoints with no arguments. — fdrake

There are arguments there, and they are based on data. It is a fact that most rich people make their fortune from starting a business. I told you what exercise you can do if you don't believe me.

If those who accumulate great wealth are motivated mostly just by the desire to create great wealth (and the power that comes with that) for themselves, do you think that such a situation is morally acceptable and should be tolerated, or even encouraged? — Janus

I think there comes a point though when more money doesn't make a difference in terms of personal power. If you have $100 million, you're pretty much as powerful as someone who has $20 billion for the most part. There's not much you can do in terms of personal power with more money. So I don't think personal power can be a source of motivation beyond that level.

You seem to think that those who are the most successful at accumulating enormous wealth are motivated, not by accumulating an ever greater fortune for themselves, but by benign, or even beneficent, desires, such as the wish to solve problems and help people. — Janus

Right, but that's how money is accumulated in the first place, by solving problems for society or providing needed products or services. You wouldn't pay me unless I provide you with something useful.

So, if there were a cap on personal wealth accumulation, and anything earned above that had to, by law, go back into the public purse, do you think the billionaires would remain motivated? — Janus

Sure, I don't think that would be a problem so long as the respective billionaire gets to decide how that additional money is to be invested for the public's benefit. But, on the other hand, if invested for the public benefit really means that the billionaire gives over control to some corrupt or incapable government bureaucrat to decide how to invest the money on his behalf, I think that's a problem.

For now, I will tackle only this part.

what kind of human activity generates the biggest changes in ownership of monetary value? — fdrake

Monetary value in and of itself is irrelevant. Production and problem-solving are relevant.

This is hands down the stock exchange or financial sector. — fdrake

The stock exchange and the financial sector are very different. The financial sector is much much larger. But I take it you don't know much about this... clearly.

Worldwide, in total about 60 trillion Euros are traded in stock exchanges per year. This is more than the combined monetary value of all goods and services bought in a year worldwide. See here for World Bank data on the subject. — fdrake

Yeah, actually roughly 66 trillion euros - not that it means anything. You actually don't understand matters very well if you think stock trades are the figure you should quote. You should quote forex markets. Every single day approximately $5 trillion USD exchange hands on the forex market - meaning approximately $1800 trillion per annum.



And a large share of these transactions are required by businesses since international trade and international selling always involves buying and selling of currency.

It's interesting at this point to note that the idea 'those who demonstrate consistent skill and utility to their communities are reward financially', that Agustino said, is pretty much bunk considered under this light. — fdrake

>:O No, you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you think most of today's fortunes were created by trading stocks or financial speculation, then you're wrong. Most of the people who get rich do so through starting and running a business, which produces something useful for society that other people need or want.

Financial speculation and trading stocks, etc. is only a way for rich people to maintain their wealth and avoid having inflation eat it up - once they are already rich. Having said that, I am actually opposed to financial speculation since it doesn't produce anything useful. So I wouldn't mind taxing PROFITS (definitely at least short-term profits) from that at 90%.

The majority of US stock traders are worse than chance at their job, but are disproportionately rewarded to the tune of a wage equal to about twice the median income in the US. — fdrake

Sure, so what? They're not where the real money is.

Who actually has the money to invest in stocks, to play the game that generates most wealth? — fdrake

>:O >:O investment in stocks is the game that generates the most wealth? >:O

You seem to confuse the passivity of growing a sum of money through financial investments with the ability to generate wealth. Financial speculation generates no wealth, since it produces nothing. Wealth is generated when products or services are sold. People who are already rich use financial investments not because they're so great at producing wealth, but because they're passive - they take relatively little effort when compared to, say, starting a business.

Analytically challenged it is. — StreetlightX

Analytically challenged who can probably solve a practical problem 4 times as fast and better than you can :-} Of course, it's easy to show off and insult others when there's no real standard, and real interaction with reality, to compare our results with.

Sure it can, especially if the wealthy infiltrate the political system and affect policy. — Erik

Yes, that's the only thing I would agree on. The government shouldn't serve the interests of entrenched corporations through corruption or laws the prevent competition.

Automation, for example, may help entrepreneurs cut labor costs and become more efficient but it also hurts certain groups of people that have lost their livelihoods as a result of advanced technology. — Erik

Look, that's only because people have the wrong expectations. You are only paid if you are useful, and that holds as much for the entrepreneur as for everyone else. If you keep doing the same job your entire life, without on the side always studying and expanding your skills, you may indeed wake up one day out of work and in a terrible situation, lacking other skills, and not having a job either. That's true. And there are many people I've met who are precisely in this condition. But all this could have been avoided had they dedicated themselves to self-improvement during many many previous years.

There are winners and losers here, even when judged strictly according to economic considerations, and if we factor in other long-term criteria then it would seem to become an even more complex topic. — Erik

There are indeed winners and losers, but you lose because you don't play your cards right. You don't lose because of a systematic issue.

I'd also maintain that a large work force and consumer would seem necessary for peddling the products and services that the visionary entrepreneur was able to create. Let's not forget the tremendous amount of money that goes into creating needs through advertising, often through extremely sophisticated and manipulative psychological means. — Erik

Marketing isn't about that though. That's another common misconception. Marketing is about communicating, honestly, to prospects what problems they have, and what products can solve their problems. Raising awareness about pain-points is just as important as showing what the solution for them is. If you don't know you have a problem you won't buy the product that could solve it.

But of course there is also unethical marketing (deceptive, bait & switch, etc.), but by and large most people are more honest than we would expect them to be in business according to our popular culture.

That's great, sincerely, but what about creating a smart phone or a highly addictive website (e.g. Facebook, porn) or some other thing which may impact on your life and health adversely, in such a way that you become more isolated form others, less physically active, more prone to feelings of depression and suicide, etc. — Erik

Does anyone force you to watch porn though? No, that's your decision. But obviously developing porn is also unethical - but there is a demand for it. I wouldn't personally ever get involved in unethical businesses, and wouldn't mind, for that matter, if we were to ban such businesses.

But things like Facebook, even if they are addictive, are still more beneficial than otherwise for most people, since they can keep in contact with others more easily.

blind or analytically challenged. — StreetlightX

Trust me, analytically challenged or blind is definitely not what I am. That should be measured by practical results you get not the postmodernist books you read. Anyone can read books and spew out a bunch of theories. But not everyone can get practical results.

It's in the growing precarity of the labour force, the dwindling growth of workers incomes, the systematic dismantling of labour laws, the offshoring of manufacturing, the watering down of social support, the wild growth of monopolies across all sectors along with all the antitrust issues that entails, the explosion of incarceration rates of the poor and the ethnic, the unparalleled growth of household debt (in the West at least), the wildly differential means of access to education, insurance, and social networks, the ongoing war against progressive tax mechanisms, the ongoing privitaization or dereliction of public resources (driving up costs for the poor), the use of austerity measures to devastate and keep down entire national economies, the use of IP to suppress newly emerging market-players - and plenty more. — StreetlightX

All these are the result of poor individual choices if you ask me. For example, people are taking on debt to finance housing purchase etc. because they don't understand how it works. Even in Eastern Europe a lot of young people are accumulating a lot of debt to finance housing purchases - why? Because they're happy they get their own house immediately, but do not understand how variable interest rates function - they don't see how inflation will go up, and how the amount they'll end up paying for the house is a LOT more than what the bank initially presents them. But if they lived with parents for say 10 years until they could afford a house by saving money, they would escape from having to use bank debt. Or they could buy a cheaper house outside the main cities. Nothing that cannot be fixed with smart individual decisions.

ongoing war against progressive tax mechanisms — StreetlightX

That's a good thing.

Despite what your teachers might have told you in school, it isn't just about effort. 9 out of 10 start-ups fail. The idea that just about anyone (or most people) can succeed if they just try hard enough is ridiculous. — Michael

Yes, but most people can succeed if they know what to do. Now knowing what to do isn't easy. Most people have completely wrong notions about business, so I'm not surprised when I hear most businesses fail.

Most people don't understand the critical importance of marketing and getting sales, above all else. Without capital, you cannot finance your operation and you will fail. Capital can make up for mistakes, lacking the right people, etc.

So most people develop products that no one buys (wrong approach), they start a product-based / manufacturing business with not enough capital, etc.

These are all mistakes. Get sales first - make sure that there's a market that you can reach and tap in before you invest.

It's not surprising, technology is always disruptive of old-money.

as disgusting as it is — StreetlightX

Why is it disgusting? :s Again, if they create that wealth, who should own it? The people who keep a finger up their nose expecting money to fall from the sky in their lap? :s

It's that that wealth is used to entrench the means of wealth creation in that bracket while keeping that means out of the hands of the 99%. — StreetlightX

Could you provide examples of what you mean? I don't find this to be the case. Most billionaires, for example, are self-made, and they don't come from rich families. Nobody stops you from providing a useful product or service, so how are the means of wealth creation kept away from middle-class people like us? More like most of us are too lazy to be interested in doing something useful at a large scale, including dealing with all the complexities that involves. But how are the mechanisms of wealth creation kept away from us? :s

What would the 1% do if the bottom 99% didn't work for them, purchase their products or services, pay their portion of taxes to help perpetuate the system which disproportionately benefits the wealthy, etc.? — Erik

It doesn't disproportionately benefit the wealthy, if by that you just mean that the wealthy own more of the newly created wealth than the others.

without the latter group the former would not have been able to achieve what they have — Erik

This is nosense. Yes, without other people on Earth, the entrepreneur would have no one to help. But that's not saying much. The entrepreneur isn't aided one iota in actually helping those people by their mere existence. It's his ingenuity and effort that is of help. The entrepreneur identifies and solves society's problems.

Ayn Randian justification of boundless greed — Erik

It's not boundless greed. To make money you need to solve problems that others have. You're not just going to give me your money, but on the other hand, if, say, I help you make $10,000, you don't mind giving me $1000. Or if I help you get your health back, etc.

I'd imagine that being ridiculously rich and generous aren't mutually exclusive, and that one can be financially successful while also feeling a sense of gratitude and indebtedness to the larger community to which one belongs. — Erik

The entrepreneur doesn't need to feel gratitude, he is already helping his society by his very existence - providing needed services and products to millions of customers.

I'd question whether there's strong link to be found between personal happiness/well-being and a thriving economy — Erik

It obviously depends on the individual.

They didn't create it in a vacuum and at some point if they're given too much everything will collapse anyway (the economy needs people wealthy enough to buy the stuff rich businessmen produce). So, try to imagine what a society where 99% of people are forced to share just 1% of the wealth would look like or how that would even be sustained. I mean, really. — Baden

Okay, so let's analyse what would happen if 1% owned as much as 99%.

The 99% would live no worse than they ever lived in the past. They actually have the same wealth they had in the past, the only difference would be that they're not participating in the growth of wealth that the 1% is experiencing. That's why they own less and less relatively - new wealth keeps being created, but they're not the ones creating it, so they don't have it. What's wrong with that?

You see that big spike in wealth in the previous graph? Most of that new wealth goes to the top 1%, since they're the ones creating it. They are creators of wealth, not consumers. Now, some of the wealth also goes to the bottom 99% - I mean pretty much everyone in developed countries today lives better than in the 1800s.

the economy needs people wealthy enough to buy the stuff rich businessmen produce — Baden

Yeah, their wealth is not affected. The bottom 99% are as rich as they ever were, in fact they're somewhat richer than they were 200 years ago. And the economy needs both low-value transactions in high volume (selling to the middle class, poor, etc.) and high-value transactions in lower volume (selling to the rich, other businesses, etc.)

How can the 99% be any richer if they don't create wealth? :s To be rich you have to do something useful for others. For many others. If they don't do that, they'll remain at low values of wealth and won't participate in wealth creation.