What’s wrong with this economic philosophy?

[Politesse]

You appear to be objection to the term social science.

No. I am a social scientist. I like the social sciences. I object to half-baked memes masquerading as thought.

Marx is not a meme. The thread is about a meme that is supposedly a philosophical argument. You brought Mark into it for reasons that are still mysterious to me.

 

[Bomb#20]

A derail but, From my political science classes Marx is labeled a social scientist.

You can make the same criticism of 'political science' and political scientists'.

But I didn't. It's perfectly possible to study politics and other social subjects scientifically. Did your political science classes that labeled Marx a social scientist provide examples of him doing so? Did they identify any cases where he came up with falsifiable hypotheses about society, derived predictions from them, checked whether the predictions were right, and discarded his hypotheses when his predictions failed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Duke of Westminster would be unimaginably wealthy no matter how much or how little work he did, just because he's the winner of the aristocratic primogeniture lottery; And the inheritance of all that wealth is assured because his 24x Great-uncle, Reginald de Grey, was a drinking buddy of Edward I back in the 1290s, and so was granted a bunch of farmland in the Thames Valley that later became the London borough of Westminster, today some of the most valuable land on Earth.

Perfect example. He's a billionaire not because people worked without receiving but because his land is worth 9 billion pounds. Which is to say, an awful lot of people out there would rather have one one-thousandth part of his land than have 9 million pounds. Creating a billionaire takes configurations of brain wiring for human preferences; it doesn't take unpaid labor.

No, that's the example of what he's talking about--unearned wealth. He didn't produce anything.

Look at the people actually do produce. Warren Buffet is a prime example. Did he take anything from anybody to make his wealth? No. He saw value others did not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyone measuring their wages in the millions per day isn’t “working” for the money in the sense I was using the term, no matter how hard they are working.

The problem with this is your definition of "work".

Fundamentally, work can be divided into two categories.

1) Direct production. Obviously, nobody in such a field can produce millions in value in a day.

2) Indirect production. You're not producing a distinct product, but something which scales at minimal cost.
... B) Directing processes. Income here is derived from maintaining/improving how things work. ...

We see quite wealthy people from group 2A. We see extremely wealthy people from group 2B.

Hey, I made about ten million bucks for a former employer in a few hours of work -- how come I didn't get extremely wealthy from it?

(The work was reading a resume slush-pile. I spotted signs of a skillset the other slush-pile readers hadn't picked up on. I hired the guy. Ten years later he was my boss. Five years after that he was a corporate VP. Employing him definitely made the company at least ten million dollars richer. )

An example of what I was talking about with group 2B, even though it didn't end up in your pocket.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Duke of Westminster would be unimaginably wealthy no matter how much or how little work he did, just because he's the winner of the aristocratic primogeniture lottery; And the inheritance of all that wealth is assured because his 24x Great-uncle, Reginald de Grey, was a drinking buddy of Edward I back in the 1290s, and so was granted a bunch of farmland in the Thames Valley that later became the London borough of Westminster, today some of the most valuable land on Earth.

Perfect example. He's a billionaire not because people worked without receiving but because his land is worth 9 billion pounds. Which is to say, an awful lot of people out there would rather have one one-thousandth part of his land than have 9 million pounds. Creating a billionaire takes configurations of brain wiring for human preferences; it doesn't take unpaid labor.

No, that's the example of what he's talking about--unearned wealth. He didn't produce anything.

That's not "No," that's "Yes." The point is, why was he talking about unearned wealth in the first place when the topic of discussion was the OP philosophy and its corollary that it takes a lot of people working without receiving to create a billionaire? He was talking about unearned wealth because people have a tendency to conflate those issues -- I'd criticized statements supporting the OP philosophy, and the next poster appears to have taken that as me claiming billionaires earned their wealth, when I'd said nothing of the sort. This is yet another of the deleterious effects the labor theory of value has on people's reasoning.

Look at the people actually do produce. Warren Buffet is a prime example. Did he take anything from anybody to make his wealth? No. He saw value others did not.

But also look at the people who actually don't produce. The Duke of Westminster is a prime example. Did he take anything from anybody to make his wealth? No. He just won the people-want-your-stuff lottery. Believing "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving." leads people to regard those like the DoW as villains when they're simply lucky. A meme that makes folks believe blood libel is toxic.

 

[Elixir]

He just won the people-want-your-stuff lottery.

That's right. Now it's his land, it's worth billions and nobody else has it. The fact that the land represents value that could lift a hundred thousand starving ditch diggers out of abject poverty is beside the point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at the people actually do produce. Warren Buffet is a prime example. Did he take anything from anybody to make his wealth? No. He saw value others did not.

But also look at the people who actually don't produce. The Duke of Westminster is a prime example. Did he take anything from anybody to make his wealth? No. He just won the people-want-your-stuff lottery. Believing "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving." leads people to regard those like the DoW as villains when they're simply lucky. A meme that makes folks believe blood libel is toxic.

He has great wealth despite not contributing anything to society. That sort of wealth provides no benefit.

He just won the people-want-your-stuff lottery.

That's right. Now it's his land, it's worth billions and nobody else has it. The fact that the land represents value that could lift a hundred thousand starving ditch diggers out of abject poverty is beside the point.

However, it doesn't work that way. Taking that $9B won't create any more production in society and thus is purely shuffling around the value that people already have. Everyone who doesn't get a share ends up worse off than if it hadn't been done. At the level of society money has no value. The value is what money can buy--and what you want is to increase that. Taking away such wealth is a lesser form of eating the seed corn (future income tax.) You need a steady flow, not a lump sum. A steady flow will cause suppliers to produce more to meet demand. Yes, companies like Amazon pay basically zero income tax--for now. It will be taxed eventually--it averages out over time. They're not cheating, they're converting current income into growth. I would like to see some controls on this but I'm not sure how to go about it without causing problems. (Perhaps require acquisitions to be with post-tax dollars??)

 

[Elixir]

purely shuffling around the value that people a person already have has.

FIFY
Add: “thereby reducing inequality”.
Increasing production isn’t the point.

 

[Bomb#20]

Look at the people actually do produce. Warren Buffet is a prime example. Did he take anything from anybody to make his wealth? No. He saw value others did not.

But also look at the people who actually don't produce. The Duke of Westminster is a prime example. Did he take anything from anybody to make his wealth? No. He just won the people-want-your-stuff lottery. Believing "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving." leads people to regard those like the DoW as villains when they're simply lucky. A meme that makes folks believe blood libel is toxic.

He has great wealth despite not contributing anything to society. That sort of wealth provides no benefit.

In the first place, yes, he contributes to society -- the guy is a philanthropist. Not on the Gates/Buffett scale, but he does support charities.

And in the second place, the accusation was that his wealth was a negative contribution to society -- that it meant other people "must work for without receiving".

 

[Bomb#20]

He just won the people-want-your-stuff lottery.

That's right. Now it's his land, it's worth billions and nobody else has it. The fact that the land represents value that could lift a hundred thousand starving ditch diggers out of abject poverty is beside the point.

By what mechanism would it do that?

What do you mean by "value", anyway? Do you mean the degree to which other rich people covet his stuff, so he could strike a bargain with them, where he agrees to give his stuff to other rich people who want it if they agree to use their own production to lift a hundred thousand starving ditch diggers out of abject poverty? If that's what you mean by "value" I'm not following how it makes a difference which rich person owns the land. The productive rich people could divert their production to help starving ditch diggers whether they get the DoW's land or not. (Of course, when some people say "value" they mean the unobservable mystical substance that makes economies go, the way "Qi" makes life forms go.)

Which hundred thousand starving ditch diggers do you have in mind, anyway? There are no starving ditch diggers in Britain. Do you mean starving actual ditch-diggers, starving because they're held prisoner in central Africa by Boko Haram et al. and forced to dig ditches without being fed? What they need is military intervention; I'm not following how the DoW's land holdings can make that happen. Or do you mean starving would-be ditch-diggers, people in third-world countries unemployed for lack of any nearby person who needs a ditch dug and can afford to pay for it? To get out of abject poverty what they need is a either a general increase in demand for labor in productive economic activity, or else a handout. If you're advocating that Britain take property rights less seriously, that policy has a track record of reducing productive economic activity. But it is an effective way to fund a handout program. Assuming Britain's rulers confiscate the DoW's land to fund a handout program, what are the chances that they will hand out the proceeds to unemployed ditch-diggers in third-world countries?

 

[Elixir]

Assuming Britain's rulers confiscate the DoW's land

lol!
Yeah, like the Department of Wildlife is gonna let them do that!

Seriously, there’s no sensible or practical way to forcibly revise the current or near future levels of inequity. Even if you tried to give it away to the worthy, it would probably cost more to develop and implement eligibility requirements than the land’s value Seems people like drastic levels of inequity in their social designs anyhow - at least the ones with power do.

It is heartwarming that you’ve thought about resolving the problem though.

 

[Bomb#20]

Assuming Britain's rulers confiscate the DoW's land

lol!
Yeah, like the Department of Wildlife is gonna let them do that!

Seriously, there’s no sensible or practical way to forcibly revise the current or near future levels of inequity. Even if you tried to give it away to the worthy, it would probably cost more to develop and implement eligibility requirements than the land’s value Seems people like drastic levels of inequity in their social designs anyhow - at least the ones with power do.

It is heartwarming that you’ve thought about resolving the problem though.

You say "inequity" but it sounds like you're talking about inequality. "Inequity" means "injustice". (Or perhaps you're simply equating inequality with injustice as an unstated premise. If you have an argument for equating them, feel free to share.)

I haven't thought much about resolving the problem of inequality because inequality is not a problem; poverty is a problem. When the poor get richer that's a good thing whether or not the poverty reduction process also makes the rich get richer.

But for the sake of those who insist on perceiving inequality per se as a problem because reasons,

what we're doing now seems to be working.

(Source: nih.gov)

 

[Elixir]

perhaps you're simply equating inequality with injustice as an unstated premise

Nope. Inequity is unjust, inequality may or may not be. At least that’s how I was using it, right or wrong.

 

[Bomb#20]

perhaps you're simply equating inequality with injustice as an unstated premise

Nope. Inequity is unjust, inequality may or may not be. At least that’s how I was using it, right or wrong.

Well then, hey, there's a sensible and practical way to forcibly revise the current and near future levels of injustice: make a couple of strategic personnel changes at the Supreme Court. That could put a quick kibosh on the recent fad of governments unjustly claiming public ownership of private uteruses. But you appear to be implying it's unjust for anyone to have the good luck to own land others are willing to pay billions for. Who would justly own that land?

 

[Elixir]

But you appear to be implying it's unjust for anyone to have the good luck to own land others are willing to pay billions for.

Sorry if I gave that impression. Unjust? I’m not in a position to know. Inequitable? Possibly, but maybe only mathematically.
I don’t lose a lot of sleep over the fact that I could sell my land and likely save a thousand Bangladeshis from starvation. The inequality of that situation is probably also inequitable, depending on one’s perspective. Or not. Personally I’d rather save a few thousand dogs if I had a choice.