Poll

8 votes (57.14%)
2 votes (14.28%)
1 vote (7.14%)
4 votes (28.57%)

14 members have voted

mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 1:09:46 AM permalink
For the sake of this question, assume that the numbers 0-10 represent relative wealth. Also assume that "0" means little or no wealth, "1" means poverty, below the level of minimum sustenance, and "2" is the minimum amount necessary to keep body and soul together. Also assume that "5" is the average wealth for an individual, and "10" is an essentially unlimited number signifying great wealth.

Now imagine that you can construct a society wherein each person receives the proportions of wealth shown above. Which society would be the happiest?

I urge you to answer OUTSIDE the contexts of your own personal ideologies. I also ask you not to answer in the context of your own personal situation and whether it would be improved or worsened by such a plan.

I would also be interested to see what number, from 0-10, you presently assign yourselves, in terms of relative wealth. Of course, you need not provide this information.

The situation where everybody gets "4" is obviously the one where there is the least amount of total wealth. This could be viewed, if you like, as the cost of administering social programs, and the disincentive to invest and innovate in a completely egalitarian and redistributive society. That may be--but please answer not in the viewpoint of total wealth, but rather, total happiness.

You can also consider the question of what a person "receives" in terms of "if he works" or "even if he doesn't, or can't".
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
September 13th, 2010 at 1:53:36 AM permalink
I voted for everyone gets a 4 because I think that would maximize total happiness. In economics class it was often taught that happiness is roughly proportional to the log of your wealth, all other things being equal, which I agree with. However, I don't believe a society where equal distribution of wealth is mandated would average a 4. Such a society, I think, would actually average a 2, at best.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
touristlocal
touristlocal
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 17
Joined: Jul 7, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 2:17:34 AM permalink
Voted four. To vote anything else I'd have to be assuming that I would either have more than "4" wealth or that I somehow deserve a higher number than other people, which is way too subjective a criterion for me to be basing my decisions on.
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 4:34:33 AM permalink
Where is an "everybody gets a 10" option? I'd vote for that one. Four seems arbitrary and way too low to achieve happiness.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 10992
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 13th, 2010 at 5:48:51 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Assume that "5" is the average wealth for an individual....

So why is there no choice for "Everybody gets '5'"

The "Everybody gets '4'" is saying that EVERYONE is below average.

That's a mathematical impossibility.


It reminds me of the surveys where most drivers consider themselves to have 'above average' driving skills.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 6:23:13 AM permalink
Went with the 2-8 option. I think everybody (who works) deserves at least a 2, and I think nobody needs more than an 8. Assuming this fake society shares traits with real society, then I couldn't bring myself to go for everybody at 4 because it takes a lot more training to be a doctor or lawyer than to be a retail cashier. While the cashier should be able to survive, the doctor and lawyer should make more money.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 6:49:55 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I voted for everyone gets a 4 because I think that would maximize total happiness. In economics class it was often taught that happiness is roughly proportional to the log of your wealth, all other things being equal, which I agree with.



I agree with that too, but I think, the level of wealth here has to be taken relatively to everybody else around you, not at absolute value. Twenty years ago, my networth was several orders of magnitude lower than it is now, and I could not even imagine some of the perks of life I am taking for granted now. Had I been given then what I have now, it would have given me a lot more happiness than my current level, because back then having all this stuff was almost unimaginable to folks around me while now it is nothing out of the ordinary.

Quote:

However, I don't believe a society where equal distribution of wealth is mandated would average a 4. Such a society, I think, would actually average a 2, at best.


I would actually put the level of wealth in former USSR at around four. It was certainly above 2 (definitely higher than what's absolutely necessary to survive), and actually quite comfortable for most people. AFAICS, it was not the actual level of wealth that made you unhappy back there, but the very certainty of it - the fact that no matter how good and bright you are, you can't really do much better (or worse for that matter), the fact that everybody is the same, has the same things, does the same things. To separate yourself from the "gray mass", you would have to either make a career in the government (communist) machine or become a dissident, and a live the life of an outcast. Staying in the middle was boring and unrewarding, but financially it was quite ok.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 7:48:25 AM permalink
Thesis: happiness derives not from what you have, but what you hope for. Even for people who are extremely happy for what they have now, their prime happiness comes from the hope that their situation will remain constant. Therefore, I evaluate the scenarios on the basis of hope:

The 0-10 scenario is what you get with no government or a perfect free market. The externalities that come along with that make it a suboptimal scenario. We just went through an example of this in the U.S. (sub-prime bankers got rich, those holding underwater homes got foreclosed upon and went bankrupt). With 0 wealth, it is virtually impossible to get to 1 wealth. That sort of hopelessness should be avoided.

The 4-only scenario is perfect communism. That's been shown to be impossible. Moreover, since the metric is happiness, not wealth, it's also a non-starter. Communism does not make achievers happy at all. The question might be whether the total happiness of society is maximized with perfect communism even though the achievers are miserable, but then you have to question whether a society which encourages non-achievement is a worthwhile pursuit. An achiever with no ability to rise above the fray also has no hope for improvement.

The 1-10 scenario is impossible so that's not worth discussing.

The 2-8 scenario, by process of elimination, is the only remaining possibility. However, it also happens to be that which, I believe, maximizes the happiness of society. By avoiding abject destitution, those who would otherwise have become destitute remain hopeful for their betterment. I believe this scenario is more likely stated as 2-7 rather than 2-8, just to indicate the overall loss of wealth due to redistribution inefficiency, but I believe that a society with some wealth redistribution is more ideally situated to provide hope to its members than a society that redistributes either all wealth or none at all.

At the end of the day, any wealth redistribution is likely to cause unhappiness for those whose wealth is being redistributed. The question here is whether that redistribution causes a greater amount of happiness overall in society. I believe it's a curve with an optimum at "some amount", and empirical evidence throughout the world tends to bear this out.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 7:52:14 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

So why is there no choice for "Everybody gets '5'"

The "Everybody gets '4'" is saying that EVERYONE is below average.

That's a mathematical impossibility.


It reminds me of the surveys where most drivers consider themselves to have 'above average' driving skills.



No, here it's accurate. The total amount of wealth in a communist society is lower than the total amount of wealth in a perfect free market, ceteris paribus, due to the economic inefficiencies resulting from the redistribution efforts. Anytime you cut up a pie you're going to leave some crumbs behind. Now imagine what would happen if you tried to cut a pie into 4000 pieces.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 8:41:32 AM permalink
I think there are a few issues with this question, such as ...

Everybody GETS?!? Two things with this. First, we already all GET the same thing ... life itself, a planet that circles the sun, etc. Second, at some point, however far back you think makes the most sense, we *DID* all GET the same thing economically; that is, all humans had the exact same amount of wealth. It's that starting point from which the disparity today emerged. If you just want to reset it, what are you going to do to keep the divergence from happening again, so that you don't have to reset it all again ad infinitum? (Keep in mind American-style capitalism is only about 230 years old, and there was economic disparity LONG LONG before America entered the picture.)

Second ... if everyone's a 4 (or whatever), then everyone's a 10 and everyone's a 0. With no difference, there's no scale to compare. Fish don't know they're wet.

Third, I think there's an underlying assumption that equal wealth would promote more harmony among people. I couldn't disagree more, in fact, I'll go further and say that anyone who does think this is, literally, insane. You can write laws, but you can't control people's vices. (NB: this is why politicians saying they'll get rid of corporate greed always make me laugh. No one can get rid of greed any more than they can get rid of lusting or any other vice.)

Fourth, it gives no weight to people's individual preferences. I'm not talking about people who lead content lives at any level of income. I'm talking about people's varied tastes in wealth and what it buys, and what that would look like under "equal wealth for all." Is a ranch-style house as "wealthy" as a Colonial style? Is a Mercedes as "wealthy" as a BMW? Yes, there can be similarities in value, but "value" is meaningless in a place where everybody has the same wealth.

I think I get the underlying motive of the question, that is, mkl wants people to be happy/comfortable/provided for. As best I can discern, I think he/she assumes the vehicle for that is equal wealth, with which I could not disagree more.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 10:44:27 AM permalink
This reminds me of the story of the MBA and the fisherman:

An American tourist was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked.

Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The tourist complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, "Only a little while."

The tourist then asked, "Why didn't you stay out longer and catch more fish?"

The Mexican said, "With this I have more than enough to support my family's needs."

The tourist then asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life."

The tourist scoffed, "I have an MBA and I can help you. You should spend more time fishing; and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat: With the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor; eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You could leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles and eventually New York where you could run your ever-expanding enterprise."

The Mexican fisherman asked, "But, how long will this all take?"

The tourist replied, "15 to 20 years."

"But what then?" asked the Mexican.

The MBA laughed and said, "That's the best part. When the time is right you would sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions."

"Millions?...Then what?"

The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."

The moral of the story: Pay attention to where you're going. You may already be there.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
September 13th, 2010 at 10:47:18 AM permalink
I think mkl is trying to say that the 0 to 10 scale of wealth applies equally to each group. For example a 4 has the same amount of wealth across each category. It would be nice if everybody could be a 10, but that is not realistic. I think it is question is getting at where is the optimal balance of rewarding hard work vs. providing a social safety net.

For example, I think it could be said that in the U.S. has a higher mean and median level of wealth than Canada. However, I would hazard to say that the percentage below the poverty line is a lot higher in the U.S.. As always, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Ignoring other factors besides wealth, do you think Canadians are happier than Americans overall?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 11:10:20 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I think mkl is trying to say that the 0 to 10 scale of wealth applies equally to each group. For example a 4 has the same amount of wealth across each category. It would be nice if everybody could be a 10, but that is not realistic. I think it is question is getting at where is the optimal balance of rewarding hard work vs. providing a social safety net.

For example, I think it could be said that in the U.S. has a higher mean and median level of wealth than Canada. However, I would hazard to say that the percentage below the poverty line is a lot higher in the U.S.. As always, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Ignoring other factors besides wealth, do you think Canadians are happier than Americans overall?



From the CIA factbook ::

Country%age Below Poverty Line (~2004)GDP per capita (~2009) Consumption of top 10% (~2007)
US12%$48,00030%
Canada10.8%(*)$38,20024.8%
UK14%$34,80028.5%

(*)this figure is the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO), a calculation that results in higher figures than found in many comparable economies; Canada does not have an official poverty line (2005)

I was actually surprised to see the GDP per capita of the UK is now less than that of Canada... I included the last column as it gives an idea of how unequal the distribution of wealth may be in each country. The pverty line is a bit of a Golden Delicious to Cox's comparision as each country measures things it's own different way, but I know the LICO bar is higher than the US poverty line bar.

Are Canadian's happier than Americans? I dunno....

I voted for 2-8. I'd have gone for 3-7 or 3-6. Some level of profit incentive is important, but I don't subscribe to the rising tide floats all boats theory that some will subscribe to. I'm probably at a 6 right now. Maybe a 7, depends exactly...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 11:35:06 AM permalink
I don't see how 2-8 (or whatever-whatever) is meaningful. If the lowest in world history is "2", that would just become the new "0". Same for 8 --> 10.

For example ... can anyone make any sort of OBJECTIVE statement that we're not already at 2-8 right now, and we're (ostensibly) mistakenly thinking it's 0-10? No matter how poor something is, we can always imagine poorer ... same for rich ---> richer.

What if we're really at 2-8 but we just THINK we're at 0-10? On what do we blame the dissatisfaction? Ignorance? Or, what if we're really at minus-2 to 12? Does that mean we're even more ignorant to the point of any discussion losing meaning?

FWIW, on the grand scale of how all things have been for all time, I would guess ...

... we are really at 8-9, not at 0-10 or 2-8.
... the wealth distribution is as non-top-heavy as it ever has been, and it is 18th century thru present America that has accomplished that.
... despite these two undeniable facts, more people living under freedom than at any time ever, and more wealth existing now than at any time ever, and it is distributed more "evenly" than it has ever been, there is dissatisfaction at wealth distribution.

IMHO, the dissatisfaction comes with the sense of empowerment that American freedom and capitalism has brought. There has always been poor folks, and they have always wanted a better life. But only American-style capitalism/freedom has made that possible, or at least made it possible within one lifetime. Therefore, arguing against the vehicle that empowers us in the first place is like cutting off the brach you're sitting on.

My $0.02.
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 12:17:28 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I voted for everyone gets a 4 because I think that would maximize total happiness. In economics class it was often taught that happiness is roughly proportional to the log of your wealth, all other things being equal, which I agree with. However, I don't believe a society where equal distribution of wealth is mandated would average a 4. Such a society, I think, would actually average a 2, at best.



My evaluation of "everybody gets 2" would be pre-1989 Communist societies. There was such spectacular waste and inefficiency that people could barely obtain the necessities of life--but they DID get those necessities--nobody starved to death. In light of the recent histories of many such countries, that represented a huge improvement.

I assumed that there would be a 20% loss of total wealth (from an average of 5 to an average of 4) from the implementation of redistribution. 60% (down to a 2) seems a bit excessive.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 12:20:00 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

So why is there no choice for "Everybody gets '5'"

The "Everybody gets '4'" is saying that EVERYONE is below average.

That's a mathematical impossibility.


It reminds me of the surveys where most drivers consider themselves to have 'above average' driving skills.



You completely misunderstand.

After the transition from "everyone gets x-y" to "everyone gets 4", 4 is the new average. It is lower relative to the arithmetic mean of a 0-10 society, because of the (theoretical) loss of wealth attendant to making everybody "4".
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 12:23:32 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

The 1-10 scenario is impossible so that's not worth discussing.



Actually, the 1-10 scenario existed in the United States for about 10 years: 1930-1940. The "dole", or the "Relief", was not enough to keep a person alive by itself, but everyone who wanted it got it. And marginal tax rates were low enough that there was still a goodly-sized crowd up there in "10" territory.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 12:31:31 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I think I get the underlying motive of the question, that is, mkl wants people to be happy/comfortable/provided for. As best I can discern, I think he/she assumes the vehicle for that is equal wealth, with which I could not disagree more.



No, I have no preconceived position on HOW this might be done. I do think such a situation should be the goal of government/society. My question was motivated by recent studies showing that people's happiness increases as their incomes rise to $75,000, but their happiness does not continue to increase as their incomes increase beyond that point. Given that someone making that amount is about a "6" on the 0-10 scale, it follows that happiness is not being maximized if wealth accrues to someone beyond the 75K threshold, since that additional wealth will provide decreasing additional happiness, where that wealth could greatly increase the happiness of someone with less. (In economic-speak, this is called "decreasing marginal utility".)

I also note repeated surveys of world happiness that consistently report the highest scores to pluralistic democracies with highly redistributive economies. This, to me, transcends ideology--it apparently works; people are happy. This is ipso facto a strong argument for considering such governmental systems optimal.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 12:36:20 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I think mkl is trying to say that the 0 to 10 scale of wealth applies equally to each group. For example a 4 has the same amount of wealth across each category. It would be nice if everybody could be a 10, but that is not realistic. I think it is question is getting at where is the optimal balance of rewarding hard work vs. providing a social safety net.

For example, I think it could be said that in the U.S. has a higher mean and median level of wealth than Canada. However, I would hazard to say that the percentage below the poverty line is a lot higher in the U.S.. As always, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Ignoring other factors besides wealth, do you think Canadians are happier than Americans overall?



I've actually observed this--Canada is kind of unusual, in that it's a huge, empty land--between the relatively few cities, there's a lot of open space. So Canada has always been amenable to immigration--it's not like the place is filling up anytime soon. This, along with liberal social policies, has created a strongly egalitarian society. I've never been to a place where there was LESS class consciousness.

So I do believe Canadians are happier than Americans overall. They actually think we're a bit nuts to tolerate ANY poverty in what is, after all, the richest country in the world.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 1:20:58 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

No, I have no preconceived position on HOW this might be done. I do think such a situation should be the goal of government/society. My question was motivated by recent studies showing that people's happiness increases as their incomes rise to $75,000, but their happiness does not continue to increase as their incomes increase beyond that point. Given that someone making that amount is about a "6" on the 0-10 scale, it follows that happiness is not being maximized if wealth accrues to someone beyond the 75K threshold, since that additional wealth will provide decreasing additional happiness, where that wealth could greatly increase the happiness of someone with less. (In economic-speak, this is called "decreasing marginal utility".)

I also note repeated surveys of world happiness that consistently report the highest scores to pluralistic democracies with highly redistributive economies. This, to me, transcends ideology--it apparently works; people are happy. This is ipso facto a strong argument for considering such governmental systems optimal.



Both of these statements worry me a litte. I heard about that "study" too, and it could be grossly misused to, say, justify forming a redistributive government. I highly doubt that you would refuse a raise to, say, $90,000, saying to your boss, "You know, boss, I'm on to your game. You're just trying to make me miserable. Well I won't let you do that. Make it $75,000 and you keep the rest, and go try and make someone else misreable."

In the study, "happy" = "no more than $75,000 a year," while the surveys suggest "happy" = "redistributive government." So there's no consistency to make a meaningful comparison. But if maximum happiness is achieved at $75,000, what if those governments are redistributing at something less? Do those people KNOW that? If they did, would they be "happy" any more? Are the people whose wealth is being taken "happy"? I would guess not, so I guess they don't know, which means that their money is being taken in some underhanded way. How is that good for society? How does that lead to "happiness"? Do we have to be ignorant in this way to be "happy"? What if they're redistributing at more than $75,000? Are they INTENTIONALLY making their people "unhappy"? Do they take money away from their people to make them "happier"? Do you think the people will actually be "happier" once they hear about that? And, who has to deal with all the surplups billion kept by the government because they have to keep it at $75,000 for maximum "happiness"? They can't reinvest it domestically because that would mean going over $75,000. Do they just give it to other countries then?

One gets the idea ....

I don't think the surveys reflect ipso facto that redistributive governments work. I think it's far more likely that it ipso facto reflects that people like to be given stuff without working for it and that government redistribution czars like their power.

I think this because a) history has proven that redistributive governments don't work and ultimately cause horrible unhappiness, and b) what we know to be human nature: we like free stuff. This is why comps are so important to our gambling venue decisions. If we didn't like (marginally) free stuff, we wouldn't care about comp programs. Conversely, nothing's more common than wealthy people who are truly unhappy and poor people who are truly happy. I'll leave it to the readers to decide whether your guess or mine more closely reflects reality.

The most powerful lies are lies mixed with truth. While there is some validity to say that having wealth brings its own issues on happiness, there is no validity to any single-factor causal relationship between wealth and happiness.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 2:17:09 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I think this because a) history has proven that redistributive governments don't work and ultimately cause horrible unhappiness,.



If we are talking a completely 'fair' re-distributive government (as extreme as the Khmer Rouge), then I'd agree. However, I've never heard of a non-re-distributive economic system (working or not working). Even the most libertarian of states have some form of coercive distribution, even if it's mutual defense and infrastructure, and every theoretical libertarian state has non-coercive sharing of the wealth via charity.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 2:54:05 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

The most powerful lies are lies mixed with truth. While there is some validity to say that having wealth brings its own issues on happiness, there is no validity to any single-factor causal relationship between wealth and happiness.



What you're missing is that wealth has diminishing utility, the more of it is acquired. Bill Gates' fifth billion probably didn't make him all that much happier, but that fifth billion could have made, say, ten thousand people VERY happy. Or, it could have gotten one hundred thousand people out of dire straits (i.e., made them less miserable).

Note that I don't make the argument of who DESERVES what. That's irrelevant. Also, it is trivial to say that augmenting one person's happiness via redistribution necessarily diminshes another's happiness--that person who is a net loser because of said redistribution. I simply wish to point out that the happiness of the person who receives the redistribution will very likely be increased by a greater amount than the happiness of the person who provides it is decreased.

I also think that "we all like a freebie" is a oversimplification, and a gross one at that. If we all live in a vacuum--if we are perfectly and beautifully selfish, a la Ayn Rand--then this is indeed not only the primary, but the ONLY satisfaction we would take from redistribution. I do not subscribe to such a jaundiced view of human nature. We are not callous; we are not indifferent. I, and most others, I hope, will derive some measure of happiness from knowing that my fellow citizens are not going to die, or be miserable, from lack of the basic necessities of life. I am able to feel empathy on both ends of the spectrum--happiness and misery. Each man's death diminishes me.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 3:08:20 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

I also think that "we all like a freebie" is a oversimplification, and a gross one at that. If we all live in a vacuum--if we are perfectly and beautifully selfish, a la Ayn Rand--then this is indeed not only the primary, but the ONLY satisfaction we would take from redistribution. I do not subscribe to such a jaundiced view of human nature. We are not callous; we are not indifferent. I, and most others, I hope, will derive some measure of happiness from knowing that my fellow citizens are not going to die, or be miserable, from lack of the basic necessities of life. I am able to feel empathy on both ends of the spectrum--happiness and misery. Each man's death diminishes me.



Umm ... wow. I guess the only part of that paragraph that needs any pointing out is that the whole Ayn Rand thing is a straw-man, completely untrue to life, and thus not applicable to the discussion. Setting up a negative straw-man is very ... well ... Obama-esque. Life is full of shades of grey, human nature is real, and we shouldn't avoid the issues by constructing straw-men.

The rest of it just comes across as self-righteousness on the order of Robert Tilton or any other huckster. Maybe you really aren't that way and just wrote a terrible paragraph. Maybe you clearly communicated who you are and you're okay with how that sounded. A wise man once told me, "there are some things that I should memorize but not quote."

Oh, another lie-mixed-with-truth: it is true that humans should aspire to care about/meet the well-being of their fellow man. The lie is, it can only look this one way (equal wealth) done by this one means (redistribution).
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 5:21:12 PM permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Umm ... wow. I guess the only part of that paragraph that needs any pointing out is that the whole Ayn Rand thing is a straw-man, completely untrue to life, and thus not applicable to the discussion. Setting up a negative straw-man is very ... well ... Obama-esque. Life is full of shades of grey, human nature is real, and we shouldn't avoid the issues by constructing straw-men.

The rest of it just comes across as self-righteousness on the order of Robert Tilton or any other huckster. Maybe you really aren't that way and just wrote a terrible paragraph. Maybe you clearly communicated who you are and you're okay with how that sounded. A wise man once told me, "there are some things that I should memorize but not quote."

Oh, another lie-mixed-with-truth: it is true that humans should aspire to care about/meet the well-being of their fellow man. The lie is, it can only look this one way (equal wealth) done by this one means (redistribution).



Obviously, your ideology and I disagree. That does not mean that you have seized the high ground of Logic, or of Truth. The Ayn Rand parallel is valid because her philosophy was every-man-for-himself, laissez-faire capitalism writ large. GIVEN HER ASSUMPTIONS, her theories were even defensible. Granted, she was somewhat of a wack job, but her ideas were well articulated, and valid as far as they went. Many present-day conservatives worship at her shrine. So bringing her into the discussion is far from constructing a "straw man", as you wrongly put it--that would only apply if Rand was nothing more than a kook, and easily debunked.

If you want to equate a sense of social consciousness with "self-righteousness", that's your lookout. I have noticed that that is a canard that conservatives often sling at those who advocate something other than dog-eat-dog capitalism. It is an ad hominem attack: you don't REALLY care about others, you just like to appear noble. Neener neener neener.

Once again, though, your criticism is ideology-based---my paragraph was "terrible" because you disagreed with all of it. So be it--that's your right. (For what it's worth, if that paragraph got my message across, then it did its job. So it wasn't particularly elegant. So I used a quote. Horrors!)

And where or when did I ever say that the ONLY way to happiness was equal wealth brought about by redistribution? If you'll recall, I set that forth as one of several possibilities, and didn't advocate for any particular one.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Paigowdan
Paigowdan
  • Threads: 115
  • Posts: 5692
Joined: Apr 28, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 6:14:04 PM permalink
Shangri la City....I thought it was sin city...
2..8? A safety net to prevent living in agony, the removal of 9 & 10 to finance ug! -redistribute the $$ to pay for this safety net, and still allow the most productive to fly to Tokyo in first class accomodations.
We can drive down I-15 in a mercedes, but no reason to taxi your Lear jet down I-15 to show off....15% tax after $7K, 50% tax from $1M to $1 billion, then 90% tax thereafter.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28576
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
September 13th, 2010 at 11:14:24 PM permalink
Money can't buy happiness, but it does buy everything else. I'm cool with that...
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
  • Jump to: