What’s wrong with this economic philosophy?

[Loren Pechtel]

1. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Translation: It’s good to be a billionaire.

(Of course it takes a LOT of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire.)

You appear to be assuming billionaires don't work. That may be true for a few, but Gates, Buffett and Musk all worked their asses off.

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.
A) Pretty much the entire entertainment industry. You put a lot of effort into an X, the marginal cost of providing that X to another is near zero. Fundamentally, you're competing for a share of the entertainment pie. What you make is determined by how desirable your product is, not by the effort you put into it.
B) Directing processes. Income here is derived from maintaining/improving how things work. A small slice of an improvement for a lot of people adds up to a lot. Upwards of 90% of my career has been such--they sell nothing from my work, they just get more output for the same amount of input. Value comes from how much materials and labor are saved elsewhere.

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

 

[bilby]

Some work is required to gather any resource.

Only if your definition of "work" is so absurdly broad as to include "breathing" as work, which sounds like the sort of excuse a teenager would attempt to make, when accused of wasting a whole day doing nothing.

 

[bilby]

Fiat money is an evolution of previous trade systems, it doesn't exist apart from the system it comes from.

Sure it does. What system did the euro come from?

 

[bilby]

It's an interesting and unavoidable characteristic of fiat money that governments can't collect it as taxes, until after they've spent it.

But those are two sides of the same coin.

Sure. But I said that it was interesting and unavoidable, not that it was useful or important.

 

[bilby]

As to history showing #1 to be true, that's a serious stretch. Very few attempts have ever been made; Failing at the first attempt (or even the first dozen attempts) to do something difficult is not a proof that that thing is impossible.

True, but it has always proven an utter failure

As had every attempt at heavier than air flight prior to the Wright Brothers. They probably shouldn't have bothered, eh?

 

[bilby]

You cannot legislate the non-prosperous into prosperity by legislating the prosperous out of prosperity; But that's tautological.

Doesn't make it wrong.

Well, duh. By definition, if it's tautological it is right. It's just devoid of useful information.

 

[bilby]

Of course, prosperity isn't usually defined merely in terms of exceeding a given wealth threshold. A wealthy person can easily fail to prosper, while a poor person can prosper without amassing great wealth. So the claim is essentially meaningless without a definition of what the fuck they're actually on about - it's not even wrong.

We generally agree on what it means, albeit without defining an exact threshold.

If you think there's a wealth threshold, then we don't "generally agree on what it means" at all.

 

[bilby]

If prosperity is defined merely by wealth, then it's a simple arithmetic fact that you can legislate people into prosperity by legislating the wealthy to become less wealthy while remaining prosperous.

If the threshold of prosperity is $P, and there are ten people who have $0.5P, and one who has $100P, legislating that the wealthy person must give $0.5P to each non-prosperous individual results in a population in which all eleven residents have achieved the $P threshold, and are prosperous; Ten have $P, and one has $95P, so not only have you not reduced the wealthy person to a non-prosperous state, but he remains by far the wealthiest member of the subject population.

The eat-the-rich position comes in myriad ways and always presumes they're an infinite resource that can be eaten at will. It's more like 1,000 at .5P and one at 100P. (And in the real world there's a whole range of values in between.)

I'm not espousing a political position; I am proving arithmetically that (if prosperity is defined merely by wealth) then the statement in the meme is not universally true.

You should note that I go on to say:

Of course, prosperity isn't usually defined merely in terms of exceeding a given wealth threshold. A wealthy person can easily fail to prosper, while a poor person can prosper without amassing great wealth. So the claim is essentially meaningless without a definition of what the fuck they're actually on about - it's not even wrong.

The claim is incoherent; Nobody needs to eat anybody in order for that to be demonstrably true, and I have demonstrated it. That my doing so has triggered one of your hobby-horse rants about economic policy has no relevance to the accuracy of my statements.

You're probably wrong that there isn't a sufficient amount of wealth, or a sufficienly biased distribution of that wealth, for redistribution to end poverty; You are certainly wrong if you are claiming that no such conditions are mathematically possible in any hypothetical circumstance.

And if you aren't claiming that, then you aren't addressing anything I have said, but instead are attacking a position you would prefer me to have espoused. There's a name for that style of argument.

 

[Bomb#20]

1. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Translation: It’s good to be a billionaire.

(Of course it takes a LOT of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire.)

You appear to be assuming billionaires don't work. That may be true for a few, but Gates, Buffett and Musk all worked their asses off.

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.

What sense were you using the term in? And what evidence do you have that the people whose work in your sense helped billionaires become billionaires were "working without receiving"? And what the heck has how hard people work got to do with anything? Are you presuming the only difference between normal-productivity work and above-normal-productivity work is how hard the worker works?

(Moreover, you appeared to be taking for granted both zero-sumism and that everything is created by labor; those premises have been critiqued upthread.)

 

[Bomb#20]

1. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Translation: It’s good to be a billionaire.

(Of course it takes a LOT of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire.)

You appear to be assuming billionaires don't work. That may be true for a few, but Gates, Buffett and Musk all worked their asses off.

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.

Indeed. And while I have no doubt that many billionaires work very hard, I also have no doubt that most people who work that hard never get to be millionaires, much less billionaires.

Hard work is neither necessary, nor sufficient, to achieve billionaire status.

Good luck is certainly both necessary and (in cases of inheritance) sufficient.
...
But working hard isn't an effective way to become a billionaire, any more than buying a lottery ticket is an effective way to become a millionaire. Sure, you can't win lotto if you don't buy a ticket; But then, you probably can't even if you do.

Focus. What you said is all true; but what the heck does any of it have to do with the points in dispute? Nobody claimed working hard was necessary or sufficient to achieve billionaire status. Of course billionaire-hood is due to luck; and that would still be true even if being a smarter and harder worker than Bill were sufficient to become a billionaire -- whether someone has that extra smart brain and that extra intense work-ethic is down to luck too.

"Wally: Is human motivation caused by genes or environment?
Pointy-haired Boss: Both. Duh! But I called you here so we could discuss your poor work performance.
Wally: We just did. You said it wasn't my fault."​

How does the randomness of the mechanisms that cause one to receive a billion dollars imply either that billionaires receive without working or that it takes a lot of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire?

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

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. )

 

[Swammerdami]

The maxims in OP are just over-simplifications, soundbites. Opposing them with other over-simplifications will do no good. People just believe what they want to believe.

Actual evidence is the proper path to truth.

Everytime the GOP runs things, they slash taxes and we end up with massive deficits and a wrecked economy. Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Trump. Brownback's Kansas, Jindal's Louisiana. Evidence speaks loudly.

Yes. One of the most clear-cut examples, especially on the matter of increased taxes on the rich, is Clinton's Administration. The economy was weakish, taxes were raised, and one of the greatest booms in all of American history resulted. (The right-wing has no answer to this, so they pretend it was Gingrich's attack on "Welfare Mama" that eliminated the deficit and caused the huge rise in asset values. Serious economists, almost without exception, know the correct answer but their voices are drowned out by the Right-Wing Bullshit Machine.)

There are plenty of examples where taxing the rich and supporting the working class with public works and welfare led to general prosperity: FDR's New Deal, booms under Eisenhower and Kennedy, and even the present Biden boom.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (and its passage without a single GOP vote in House or Senate) should be linked to Paul Revere's Ride and Operation Overlord as one of the great stories of American heroism and triumph, but this reality has been drowned out by liars and the duped.

 

[steve_bank]

Capitalism as it evolved starting in the early 1800s did a lot of good. Free market competition led to the technology we have today. Free market competition led to reduced cost, increased performance, and reduced size of computers.

The problem is the conservative mantra 'let the market decide', even if it leads to serious harm and negatives. If people want gas cars, let the market decide and keep using fossil fuels.

No one seems to be debating the OP.

Its a simple question. If a single woman gets pregnant and can not support herself goes on welfare. She gets food for herself and the baby without working for it. Is it 'free' or does somebody else have to produce the food? Somebody else carries the burden, IOW working taxpayers. It is not a moral question about what should b done for the woman and baby, it is a fundamental economic question.

Look at currency as a form of barter.

 

[steve_bank]

Philosophy implies thought and argumentation. Those are maxims, nothing more.

EDIT TO ADD:
And they sure as hell aren't social science! "Social" is a topic, "science" is a method of study.

Mark is considered a social scientist.

The 'scientific method' does not just apply to physical science.

His ideas were tested by Russian and Chinese communism, and they failed to a large degree.

Marx's observations of the economics of his day were accurate. His prediction of a spontaneous global uprising of the workers did not materialize. Culture, capitalism, and economics changed.

Our education system is engaging in social engineering.

 

[Politesse]

Philosophy implies thought and argumentation. Those are maxims, nothing more.

EDIT TO ADD:
And they sure as hell aren't social science! "Social" is a topic, "science" is a method of study.

Mark is considered a social scientist.

The 'scientific method' does not just apply to physical science.

His ideas were tested by Russian and Chinese communism, and they failed to a large degree.

Marx's observations of the economics of his day were accurate. His prediction of a spontaneous global uprising of the workers did not materialize. Culture, capitalism, and economics changed.

Our education system is engaging in social engineering.

My comment was not a complaint about Marx. It was a complaint about this meme.

 

[Bomb#20]

Mark is considered a social scientist.

Jesus is considered a scientist, by Christian Scientists. Being considered a scientist doesn't make you one.

 

[lpetrich]

(Of course it takes a LOT of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire.)

You appear to be assuming billionaires don't work. That may be true for a few, but Gates, Buffett and Musk all worked their asses off.

They indeed work, but they only do the work that they want to do, otherwise they would have retired long ago. I note that Bill Gates retired a few years ago.

 Elon Musk and Elon Musk's Dating History: From Amber Heard to Grimes and Elon Musk's 11 Children: All About His Kids and Their Mothers

• Jennifer Gwynne - dat 1 yr, mid-1990's
• Justine Wilson - mar 2000 - div 2008 - 6 children: a single child, twins, & triplets
• Talulah Riley - dat 2008 - mar 2010 - div 2012 - mar 2013 - file-div-wtdw 2014 - div 2016
• Amber Heard - dat 2016 - spl 2018
• Grimes (Claire Boucher) - dat 2018 - sep 2021 - dat 2022 - 3 children
• Shivon Zilis - 2 children: twins
• Natasha Bassett

Doesn't seem like much of a work ethic.

 

[lpetrich]

To my list I add: There has never been a nation or a city or any other territory that has taxed itself into protection and security. Never.

 

[steve_bank]

Mark is considered a social scientist.

Jesus is considered a scientist, by Christian Scientists. Being considered a scientist doesn't make you one.

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'.

 

[steve_bank]

Philosophy implies thought and argumentation. Those are maxims, nothing more.

EDIT TO ADD:
And they sure as hell aren't social science! "Social" is a topic, "science" is a method of study.

Mark is considered a social scientist.

The 'scientific method' does not just apply to physical science.

His ideas were tested by Russian and Chinese communism, and they failed to a large degree.

Marx's observations of the economics of his day were accurate. His prediction of a spontaneous global uprising of the workers did not materialize. Culture, capitalism, and economics changed.

Our education system is engaging in social engineering.

My comment was not a complaint about Marx. It was a complaint about this meme.

'Social is a topic not a science' is what? To me uninformed gibberish.

You appear to be objection to the term social science.

The terms I am familiar with are hard science and sift science. Psychology is a soft science.

Hard and soft science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is not a meme, Marx as a social scientist was covered in my political science classes. Specifically a class in comparative politics.

You can say Marx developed a structured analysis of socioeconomics and causal relationships.