Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[ScottieX]

Had a debate recently with an insurance salesman.

I was complaining that

1) there was a disaster in NZ but it was not legitimate for them to raise my premiums because of an earthquake in christchurch because the risk of an earthquake in auckland hadn't changed (from close to 0%).

2) Reinsurers dont add much value, and that in theory some sort of state aparatus could get into that industry if anyone had the political will-power and that that would be a good thing because they seem to be making oligopoly profits (like monopoly profits) from a position of power (hence why they can charge me war risk premiums when i ship things from NZ to australia and earthquake surcharges in auckland).

against point 1 he argued that insurance is a charity of sorts and that an earthquake in christchurch is NZ's earthquake so it is in a sense our duty to donate via my insurance payments to subsidise them even if this places incentives in the wrong place (eg for people to build houses in places that are earthquake risks just as conversely their denying insurance to some people in these areas results in those people not being able to get insurance from anyone).

against point 2 he argued that the reinsurers had made a loss on september 11 and a few other events like the japan earthquake and were only just recouping that loss now, and that it was inevitable that they would do so (as opposed to just raising capital based on future risks?) and that their industry is a low profit industry and one that no state could get into without being downgraded significantly by credit rating agencies even if they only focused on those areas the reinsurers are using to recoup losses from other areas (eg war surcharges for australia / NZ).

any thoughts?
hopefully I didnt misrepresent him... But I cant see it as defensible from either a socialist or a capitalist perspective..

[ShowtekGER]

If we regulate business too heavily that too can lead to unwanted outcomes.

So, I get it, by talking about regulation or a fair amount of taxation along with trickle down economics it looks an awful lot like I'm changing the entire theory, confusing my terms, equivocating, etc. We don't have to use that phrase at all of course. But in a reasonably regulated business environment, in which the business owners tend to have access to more resources than the workers, there is a good chance that the workers will benefit from wealth finding its way into their pockets. Maybe we don't like that phrase (trickle down) because of its historical association, but it literally describes the process as it should work.

i don't really understand this conservative argument. let's say we have an extremely progressive tax rate or socialist market system that hypothetically creates a society in which the one that earns most earns only five times as much as the one that earns least. do you think he would cease to invest and create jobs because he is dissatisfied with the amount of taxes he has to pay? or do you think a lot of wealth is needed in order to take the risk to invest, start businesses and therefore create jobs? i'm saying the incentive to own more than everybody else, to be "rich", to acquire societal status, and whatever motivation you might have for being a capitalist would still exist largely to the same extent.

[elthrasher]

But in a reasonably regulated business environment, in which the business owners tend to have access to more resources than the workers, there is a good chance that the workers will benefit from wealth finding its way into their pockets.

Sure, if the regulations include taxes to pay for services the workers enjoy, some degree of protectionism and/or measures to prevent outsourcing and protecting the rights of workers to organize. While some corporations do make an effort to pay good wages or even engage in profit-sharing, that's not the standard. Most of them are trying to pay the absolute bottom-barrel salary no matter what. There's no indication that if their profits were higher they would change that practice at all. After all, many major corporations ARE posting record profits and yet the median wage continues to fall.

[Zefelius]

i don't really understand this conservative argument.

Ha! It's funny you read it that way because I feel as though I've become more liberal in the last year, especially after all the Tea Party and Republican stupidity of last summer---which continues today. My version of "trickle down" economics won't make any conservatives happy, that's for sure. I'm for environmental regulation, a decent amount of workers' rights, livable wages, benefits whenever possible, equal opportunity, etc.

If I'm conservative economically it's only to the degree that I think competition is healthy and that too much taxation redistributes wealth to those who are less capable of growing the overall economy than others who have a talent for running businesses. The latter can become greedy, of course, and that's why we need oversight.

[Zefelius]

let's say we have an extremely progressive tax rate or socialist market system that hypothetically creates a society in which the one that earns most earns only five times as much as the one that earns least. do you think he would cease to invest and create jobs because he is dissatisfied with the amount of taxes he has to pay? or do you think a lot of wealth is needed in order to take the risk to invest, start businesses and therefore create jobs? i'm saying the incentive to own more than everybody else, to be "rich", to acquire societal status, and whatever motivation you might have for being a capitalist would still exist largely to the same extent.

You could be right. I don't know what the magical number is, whether it's 5x or 15x or whatever, but let's aim for whatever target will produce the best results for most of society. Since I'm not an expert, I'll leave it to economists to do these sorts of calculations. But I agree with you and Thrashy that present day economic inequality is absurd---and I agree not on behalf of moral ideals, but for the simple reason that it ultimately makes our society weaker. Perhaps we're similar in that way.

[Zefelius]

Although I have to say that as soon as I went downtown Seattle to see the Occupy Protest I instantly felt like a raging conservative! Ha! One of the speakers was screaming deliriously about police brutality as she looked at many of the Seattle Police Force as if they themselves were implicated. The way she made her case sounded an awful lot like how a racist or imperialist would make his case about the "savage other." Too many of these extreme liberals are the flip side of dumb conservatives. Thus I began screaming amid the crowd about how we needed to kill the poor and asked everyone at the top of my lungs why they raped my grandmother. They just stared at me.

[JackHall2003]

Too many of these extreme liberals are the flip side of dumb conservatives. Thus I began screaming amid the crowd about how we needed to kill the poor and asked everyone at the top of my lungs why they raped my grandmother. They just stared at me.

Brilliant Zef. Now I can't get that Dead Kennedy's song out my head though

[ShowtekGER]

You could be right. I don't know what the magical number is, whether it's 5x or 15x or whatever, but let's aim for whatever target will produce the best results for most of society. Since I'm not an expert, I'll leave it to economists to do these sorts of calculations. But I agree with you and Thrashy that present day economic inequality is absurd---and I agree not on behalf of moral ideals, but for the simple reason that it ultimately makes our society weaker. Perhaps we're similar in that way.

so you actually think that these arguments against equality are valid? they always come across to me as so weak that they merely seem like a badly disguised defense of the status quo of inequality. you will leave that decision to the experts? is that not too passive and reverent? it's these experts that have created the inequality we see now in the first place and that profit from it. and the true "scientific" community in the field is hard to account for. perhaps a majority of economists in the US argue for more competition and less taxes while that's not the case in most of europe. regarding an issue that is so clearly soaked with ideology it doesn't make sense to me to rely on some expert opinion as we do in matters of actual scientific inquiries.

why do you have to be such a rampant elitist, zef? also referring to your remarks on competition and resource distribution based on supposed ability.

[ShowtekGER]

Although I have to say that as soon as I went downtown Seattle to see the Occupy Protest I instantly felt like a raging conservative! Ha! One of the speakers was screaming deliriously about police brutality as she looked at many of the Seattle Police Force as if they themselves were implicated. The way she made her case sounded an awful lot like how a racist or imperialist would make his case about the "savage other." Too many of these extreme liberals are the flip side of dumb conservatives. Thus I began screaming amid the crowd about how we needed to kill the poor and asked everyone at the top of my lungs why they raped my grandmother. They just stared at me.

lol, that fits perfectly with my image of mr. igrek.

but, yes, many people are having a hard time remaining objective and are overwhelmed by emotions. i too find that annoying. but maybe, only maybe, it's just you who reports the incident like this because of a bias and in reality the speaker just gave an angry speech about police brutality.

[elthrasher]

One of the speakers was screaming deliriously about police brutality as she looked at many of the Seattle Police Force as if they themselves were implicated.

Well, they did arrest a woman for sitting down with an umbrella, which is a crime in your town now. There may be some justifiable context there. But probably it's just that when there's an open mic, people are going to line up according to how crazy they are.

John Oliver did a really good piece for the Daily Show: http://videosift.com/video/TDS-The-9...dh-John-Oliver

[SVPM]

Ha! It's funny you read it that way because I feel as though I've become more liberal in the last year, especially after all the Tea Party and Republican stupidity of last summer---which continues today. My version of "trickle down" economics won't make any conservatives happy, that's for sure. I'm for environmental regulation, a decent amount of workers' rights, livable wages, benefits whenever possible, equal opportunity, etc.

If I'm conservative economically it's only to the degree that I think competition is healthy and that too much taxation redistributes wealth to those who are less capable of growing the overall economy than others who have a talent for running businesses. The latter can become greedy, of course, and that's why we need oversight.

I agree with you. I do think there is a good level of taxation and that this level can change from a country to an other, because in part of the culture of work. I think it is possible to have a country to be taxed at 80% and still have people getting up in the morning wanting to produce thing if the culture of work in that society puts some motivation in htem. I'm not saying it 's good to have a culture of work necessarly. The same thng apply to the opposite of the sprectrum. If you can live really confortably without working, in some culture you'll work anyway in others more people will tend to not work. Government can put incencitives to make people work, but it varies greatly from a country to an other. Some countries have really great program, but they have difficulties to integer newcomers in their economy, because the culture is really different. I don't think it's the system that have to be questionned necessarly, more a question to adapt the incencitive.

I think one big problem is that financial activities aren't well regulated, especially in US. Right now, you have a better return on investment by investing in financial economy than in real economy. So big corporation are doing lots of money, but no jobs are created. It is a problem. Why is it allowed to have share that aren't a part of a company but the derivative of the potential of growth of an other share. It's normal that company who have the goal to make money invest in that instead of real economy if the risk is acceptable. We've seen with the US financial rescue that the too big to fall reduce the risk to a minimum.

[SVPM]

Trickle down

http://500motivators.com/motivate/me...-trickle-down/

[ScottieX]

There may be some justifiable context there.

usually when someone has a story about someone doing somthing that seems strange - its because you dont have the whole picture. Often the sources of information. People (and organizations) normally dont act strange - thats why its 'strange'.

That being said I know nothing about the specific incident - just making a general observation.

[ScottieX]

I think one big problem is that financial activities aren't well regulated, especially in US. Right now, you have a better return on investment by investing in financial economy than in real economy. So big corporation are doing lots of money, but no jobs are created. It is a problem. Why is it allowed to have share that aren't a part of a company but the derivative of the potential of growth of an other share. It's normal that company who have the goal to make money invest in that instead of real economy if the risk is acceptable. We've seen with the US financial rescue that the too big to fall reduce the risk to a minimum.

well in theory if I invested money in a derivative that represents the likelyhood of a certain event and I move the price a bit closer towards the actual value of that derivative ecase Im super smart or somthing - then I proably slightly improve the price of the things that derivative came from.

like lets say it is morgages. In practice I probably slightly redce your morgage cost because in reality the bank is overestimating your risk of failure and I'm subsidising it because with the derivative i can look at your ris from a more agregate level.

Problem arises in cases like the below...

A- Im no smarter and am setting myself up to fail - but the market should punish me for that.
B- I am relying on betting other peoples money an dont care (enough) if i run a risk of going bankrupt (like nick leason, or a lot of property investors)
C- I am relying on being too big to fail or at least negitive impacts of my failure meaning i get help if i get in trouble.
D- Im intentionally trying to trick the market - Ie I believe the market is full of mom and pop type investors or in currency exchange - businesses not in currency industry that I can screw by sending out the wrong signals then catching them out by being faster - proably in short term trades.
E- the government is trying to maintain a certain currency level for a reason and i think they are lying to the people. I can then contribute to forceing them into a corner by investing.
F- the people making the derivatives se the process to hide irreglarities (ie to hide information)

[SVPM]

well in theory if I invested money in a derivative that represents the likelyhood of a certain event and I move the price a bit closer towards the actual value of that derivative ecase Im super smart or somthing - then I proably slightly improve the price of the things that derivative came from.

like lets say it is morgages. In practice I probably slightly redce your morgage cost because in reality the bank is overestimating your risk of failure and I'm subsidising it because with the derivative i can look at your ris from a more agregate level.

ok...

Still I don't think it's the best way to invest money in a Pareto sense (optimisation of the well-being of society). It could be the best private way to do, so it will be the way to do of almost everybody except if it's regulated. Right now government are doing the opposite with the tax system. There is incencitive to invest in financial economy rather than in "real" one. In my opinion it's one of the role of the government to put in place a space that it is economically wise to act economically wise.

[Zefelius]

Brilliant Zef. Now I can't get that Dead Kennedy's song out my head though

Jello Biafra and the DK are pretty awesome. I didn't know you liked them. They were absolutely a great, great band.

[Zefelius]

Well, they did arrest a woman for sitting down with an umbrella, which is a crime in your town now. There may be some justifiable context there. But probably it's just that when there's an open mic, people are going to line up according to how crazy they are.

John Oliver did a really good piece for the Daily Show: http://videosift.com/video/TDS-The-9...dh-John-Oliver

Okay, that is pretty dumb. Arrested for sitting down with an umbrella? And I did see the Oliver piece: brilliant. The Daily Show might be left-leaning, but I've always thought they've been fair about exposing hypocrisy wherever they find it.

[Zefelius]

so you actually think that these arguments against equality are valid? they always come across to me as so weak that they merely seem like a badly disguised defense of the status quo of inequality. you will leave that decision to the experts? is that not too passive and reverent? it's these experts that have created the inequality we see now in the first place and that profit from it. and the true "scientific" community in the field is hard to account for. perhaps a majority of economists in the US argue for more competition and less taxes while that's not the case in most of europe. regarding an issue that is so clearly soaked with ideology it doesn't make sense to me to rely on some expert opinion as we do in matters of actual scientific inquiries.

why do you have to be such a rampant elitist, zef? also referring to your remarks on competition and resource distribution based on supposed ability.

You make an interesting case for collective bias on the part of experts. I have to think about that. I suppose if you can prove that then it has to be taken seriously. I feel sometimes that I've observed collective liberal bias in the humanities, so it's not impossible that in economics there might be a contrary bias in favor of the upper classes. But then again, I remember many economists coming out against the conservatives here in the States and more in favor of Obama's policies when we were debating taxes and spending. Seems to me that there are plenty of objective, balanced economists. But perhaps you would say that even our left-leaning economists still have a capitalist agenda. If so, it would have to be proven invalid that a certain amount of inequality is good for society as a whole---and who else can do this but people trained and educated to become experts in the field? I certainly can't pretend that I know more than they...

[ShowtekGER]

You make an interesting case for collective bias on the part of experts. I have to think about that. I suppose if you can prove that then it has to be taken seriously. I feel sometimes that I've observed collective liberal bias in the humanities, so it's not impossible that in economics there might be a contrary bias in favor of the upper classes. But then again, I remember many economists coming out against the conservatives here in the States and more in favor of Obama's policies when we were debating taxes and spending. Seems to me that there are plenty of objective, balanced economists. But perhaps you would say that even our left-leaning economists still have a capitalist agenda. If so, it would have to be proven invalid that a certain amount of inequality is good for society as a whole---and who else can do this but people trained and educated to become experts in the field? I certainly can't pretend that I know more than they...

no bias. economics just isn't science. and it isn't objective either. it's a collection of differing subjective ideas about what to produce, how much, and where and how to distribute resources nationally and globally. it seems that some ideas benefit those that have designed them and that's probably historically so. the main economic intellectual theory will reflect the interest of the dominant group as it has been in slave societies, feudal societies, and in capitalist societies to some extent. the product of maintaining said interest is inequality, where the elite owns disproportionally more than the great majority, and i really fail to see the benefits of such inequality except for lone examples that really can't be generalized to some universal rule. yet, the negative associations of inequality are quite clear: social capital is lower, crime rates are higher, the populations health seems to be lower, unequal societies even seem to be less innovative, and the list goes on.

[Zso_Zso]

A long but very interesting interview:

http://blog.sfgate.com/tmiller/2011/...jeremy-rifkin/

some snipets to raise your appetite:

"the crash of the US housing market was not the proximate cause of the Great Recession, but was instead an aftershock of crude oil hitting a price of $147 per barrel oil in July 2008 – 60 days prior to the crash of the financial markets."

"Mr. Rifkin is the principle architect of the European Union’s Third Industrial Revolution long-term economic sustainability plan to address the triple challenge of the global economic crisis, energy security, and climate change."

"This is an end game. And the reason it’s happening is we’ve hit peak oil per capita, and now peak oil production – both. Peak oil per capita no one talks about much."

"We can go to the dirtier fuels like tar sand, heavy oil and coal, but they’re more expensive and they’re dirtier – which gets to the second problem, which is climate change."

"And what’s so interesting about this communication, from the point of view of a new third industrial revolution is it’s distributed/collaborative by nature, and it’s scales laterally. Where as centralized electricity communication scales vertically top-down."

"Number one use of energy: buildings, number one cause of climate change: buildings – number two, parenthetically, of course, is beef production and consumption – related animal husbandry. Number three is transport. I always mention two because no one seems to want to talk about two."

"We’re taking off-the-shelf Internet technology and we’re including new apps every day that allow us to set up an energy Internet across Europe. Germany is testing six sites around the country. So that when millions of buildings are collecting their green electricity on site with the sun, the wind, the heat, the garbage, etc., they store it as hydrogen – like you store media and digital."

[Zefelius]

no bias. economics just isn't science. and it isn't objective either.

Even if we grant this for the sake of argument, there is still a body of knowledge associated with experts in economics which exceeds that of the rest of us non-experts. To master the principles and ideas of this body of knowledge takes many years of rigorous work, and thus I'm in the same position as I stated above, namely, that I myself can't pretend to know more about this field than the individuals who have undergone such training and education. Hence, they may not be objective in your sense, but we still have no choice but to either trust the experts, become experts ourselves, or trust no one!

[Zefelius]

the main economic intellectual theory will reflect the interest of the dominant group as it has been in slave societies, feudal societies, and in capitalist societies to some extent.

Looks like you've been reading some of the finer points of Marxist theory. Nicely done. But somebody could object that it's too economically deterministic. If it were true then last summer many American economists would have sided with the Republicans on the budget battle insofar as the Republicans represent the interests of the rich and powerful even more so than the Democrats. I'm sure there are thousands of other counter-examples if we took the time to read journals in economics.

As for the universal rule of inequality benefiting the lower classes, one need only look at the overall historical trajectory of civilization to see that in almost all areas of human convenience, health, and prosperity the vast majority of us are doing much better than we would be one hundred years ago, three hundred years ago, or two thousand years ago. Capitalism thus far has done much more for us than, say, communism.

[ShowtekGER]

Even if we grant this for the sake of argument, there is still a body of knowledge associated with experts in economics which exceeds that of the rest of us non-experts. To master the principles and ideas of this body of knowledge takes many years of rigorous work, and thus I'm in the same position as I stated above, namely, that I myself can't pretend to know more about this field than the individuals who have undergone such training and education. Hence, they may not be objective in your sense, but we still have no choice but to either trust the experts, become experts ourselves, or trust no one!

who comprises this body of knowledge? the neoliberal base or the mixed market base? the standard on which both bases largely agree might exist but only in regard to our current capitalist system. are the people making up the "the left" party in germany, for example, not experts? i think they gained something like 5-10% in the last major election and they want to abolish capitalism eventually. so do the socialist people's party and enhedslisten in denmark which together gained almost 15% in the danish elections a month ago. so there are even many experts who do not agree with what you might identify as a consensus among experts. i doubt that the rule of thumb of trusting the experts when we're not experts ourselves works in this case as it works in regard to, e.g., global warming where more than 90% of all scientists in the field agree that it's happening and that human activity is a major contributing factor and virtually the rest hold non-committal positions. expert opinion is not divided when it comes to humanly induced climate change.

[ShowtekGER]

Looks like you've been reading some of the finer points of Marxist theory. Nicely done. But somebody could object that it's too economically deterministic. If it were true then last summer many American economists would have sided with the Republicans on the budget battle insofar as the Republicans represent the interests of the rich and powerful even more so than the Democrats. I'm sure there are thousands of other counter-examples if we took the time to read journals in economics.

hence, i wrote "to some extent". of course, this rule will not include 100% of all incidents but do you deny that it describes a general dynamic in human history? do you think that, if you wanted to outline the general literature of the slave age, you would not identify this pattern? i'm not saying your objection is invalid but i don't think it's an actual counter-argument. it's merely the argument supporting the truism that this marxist rule doesn't cover every detail in history.

As for the universal rule of inequality benefiting the lower classes, one need only look at the overall historical trajectory of civilization to see that in almost all areas of human convenience, health, and prosperity the vast majority of us are doing much better than we would be one hundred years ago, three hundred years ago, or two thousand years ago. Capitalism thus far has done much more for us than, say, communism.

i hear this argument in favor of capitalism, globalization, and western imperialism over and over again. i saw someone arguing that before we europeans extended our and our system's influence to africans, they hadn't even discovered the wheel yet so we definitely improved their lives. i strongly doubt that an the average sub-saharan african lives a better life now than he would've 500 years ago as a hunter-gatherer. while i agree that european and some other people's lives have materialistically strongly improved over time, arguing that this is proof for an improvement of all the world's people seems somewhat arrogant.

secondly, where on earth is the connection between technological advancement and capitalism, not to speak of inequality? wouldn't it make more sense to assume that some individuals could access their natural human innovation because of the relative freedom they enjoyed in western civilization under democracy and thus relatively more equality? this idea that competition and pressure create innovation is just so misleading. and again, how on earth is this an argument for inequality benefiting the lower classes?

[Zefelius]

so there are even many experts who do not agree with what you might identify as a consensus among experts.

You know I'm not arguing for great amounts of inequality, right? I assume you know that. If so, then you know I'm only suggesting that a certain degree of inequality, which can only be determined by experts, is good for most of society. In that case, I'm not sure if there are a large amount of economists who would disagree with me. If they do, then I will concede the point to you immediately.

[Zefelius]

hence, i wrote "to some extent". of course, this rule will not include 100% of all incidents but do you deny that it describes a general dynamic in human history? do you think that, if you wanted to outline the general literature of the slave age, you would not identify this pattern? i'm not saying your objection is invalid but i don't think it's an actual counter-argument. it's merely the argument supporting the truism that this marxist rule doesn't cover every detail in history.

In any case the point is moot. All that matters is whether the economists are right or not right. We can't attack them for their self-interests, which is what a lot of liberals like to do in regard to war, economics, religion, etc. That would be an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. And so who is it that can best determine whether they are right or wrong? Only those who have undergone extensive training and education in the requisite field. Hence I have little option but to trust the experts rather than others like myself who may or may not have taken only a couple of economics classes, read a little of Marx and Smith, and so forth. I have to admit I am essentially ignorant on what economic plans are the best-equipped for increasing the overall social good.

[ScottieX]

"I strongly doubt that an the average sub-saharan african lives a better life now than he would've 500 years ago as a hunter-gatherer."

Well...
if their population was then is what it is now, they would probably have lived miserable lives.
If their population now was what it was them they would probably not have nearly as many issues.

but the cause of the population increase is largely a massive decrease in infant mortality due to improved healthcare for infants.
I suggest the key thing you would be seeing in the comparison of the alternate world where you prevented the west from coming in contact with sub saharan africa would be related to the massive increase in infant death.

[ShowtekGER]

You know I'm not arguing for great amounts of inequality, right? I assume you know that. If so, then you know I'm only suggesting that a certain degree of inequality, which can only be determined by experts, is good for most of society. In that case, I'm not sure if there are a large amount of economists who would disagree with me. If they do, then I will concede the point to you immediately.

are you? it seems that american conservatives want to maintain or enhance the current status of US inequality which is particularly great among industrialized nations. thrasher, as perhaps representing the liberal voice, would like inequality rates to return to a 25:1 relationship of income of an average CEO and his average employee. you as a moderate would probably reside somewhere in the middle of these numbers. i'd say that's a great amount of inequality!

it sounds like you don't really know why inequality is supposed to benefit society except for the fact that some economists say it is. because that "can only be determined by experts". if i try to research the issue, i find a lot more arguments for why inequality is a negative influence, not vice versa.

[ShowtekGER]

In any case the point is moot. All that matters is whether the economists are right or not right. We can't attack them for their self-interests, which is what a lot of liberals like to do in regard to war, economics, religion, etc. That would be an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. And so who is it that can best determine whether they are right or wrong? Only those who have undergone extensive training and education in the requisite field. Hence I have little option but to trust the experts rather than others like myself who may or may not have taken only a couple of economics classes, read a little of Marx and Smith, and so forth. I have to admit I am essentially ignorant on what economic plans are the best-equipped for increasing the overall social good.

well, then i suppose it really depends on which experts to listen to. i'm quite sure that the three left-wing parties i have listed in an earlier post would go further than thrasher in their pursuit of equality, if not much further. one of them even considers itself marxist, so by definition it would seek to establish an eventual sort of perfect equality, right?

i don't have to trust neoliberal economists because they are only one of several groups of thinkers in the field. their policies might dominate the world economy because it has been adopted by the world's super power but that doesn't make it consensus. moreover, i don't see how criticizing them for disguising their self-interest as natural law, fair competition, or just social order is invalid, whether this is enacted fully consciously or not.

[ShowtekGER]

"I strongly doubt that an the average sub-saharan african lives a better life now than he would've 500 years ago as a hunter-gatherer."

Well...
if their population was then is what it is now, they would probably have lived miserable lives.
If their population now was what it was them they would probably not have nearly as many issues.

but the cause of the population increase is largely a massive decrease in infant mortality due to improved healthcare for infants.
I suggest the key thing you would be seeing in the comparison of the alternate world where you prevented the west from coming in contact with sub saharan africa would be related to the massive increase in infant death.

well, we wouldn't see an increase in infant mortality, it would stay the same, right? we wouldn't have seen a rapid increase of the population either. so with no intervention circumstances would have stayed the same until sub-saharan africans would've eventually developed their own agriculture and abandoned the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

[elthrasher]

thrasher, as perhaps representing the liberal voice, would like inequality rates to return to a 25:1 relationship of income of an average CEO and his average employee.

That's a bit out of context. I said that things were better when we were at 1:25. I don't really care that much what top earners make as long as there is enough left to have a robust middle class.

[ScottieX]

it sounds like you don't really know why inequality is supposed to benefit society except for the fact that some economists say it is. because that "can only be determined by experts". if i try to research the issue, i find a lot more arguments for why inequality is a negative influence, not vice versa.

Money represents power - if you give more power to those who are better at managing money better at organizing capital, better at all that sort of thing (which is probably at least a bit related to wealth) then on agregate you might expect your wealth and assets to be managed more effectively.

In terms of income it represents incentive to work, and work effectively and efficiently. For some people we may want to disincentivise them working, for example certain people with minimal skills but bad personal habits... and others we want to give massive incentives for them to work long hours (maybe doctors, CEOs, presidents).

Of course at some point the other effect kicks in where the rich start to manage the money as if it has very low value (eg buying a gold toilet seat) where a poorer person might be forced to manage it very carefully (for example skipping the toilet seat and using a hose). And some income inequality could achieve the aim without being in the order of hundreds of times difference.

[ScottieX]

well, we wouldn't see an increase in infant mortality, it would stay the same, right? we wouldn't have seen a rapid increase of the population either. so with no intervention circumstances would have stayed the same until sub-saharan africans would've eventually developed their own agriculture and abandoned the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Yes that is what I was saying.
Its supposed to trouble you at least a little bit.

Overpopulation is a tough problem...

[Zefelius]

well, then i suppose it really depends on which experts to listen to. i'm quite sure that the three left-wing parties i have listed in an earlier post would go further than thrasher in their pursuit of equality, if not much further. one of them even considers itself marxist, so by definition it would seek to establish an eventual sort of perfect equality, right?

Are they economic experts? If so, that's pretty amazing and pretty cool. I do remember reading about the recent elections in Germany, and some of the newly elected officials (as with the Pirate Party) didn't sound like experts at all to me. But if they are, if they've undergone extensive training in the principles of economics, which I'm sure would take 5-10 years, then they should count as experts.

Here in America we probably have less than .5% of our politicians trained in economics. Thus I'm not very likely to trust them at all on this issue.

[Zefelius]

moreover, i don't see how criticizing them for disguising their self-interest as natural law, fair competition, or just social order is invalid, whether this is enacted fully consciously or not.

It's not invalid to criticize them for hypocrisy, but it is invalid to criticize their argument on this basis.

[ShowtekGER]

Money represents power - if you give more power to those who are better at managing money better at organizing capital, better at all that sort of thing (which is probably at least a bit related to wealth) then on agregate you might expect your wealth and assets to be managed more effectively.

In terms of income it represents incentive to work, and work effectively and efficiently. For some people we may want to disincentivise them working, for example certain people with minimal skills but bad personal habits... and others we want to give massive incentives for them to work long hours (maybe doctors, CEOs, presidents).

interesting to actually see some concrete arguments for inequality. the one i've found most often when researching it was that it enhances growth in a capitalist system. but since that kind of growth seems to contribute greatly to many of the current problems humanity faces i'm not sure if that is actually an advantage.

managing a lot of money is not the same as owning a lot of money, right? so your talented business guy might still manage our money without being extremely rich. also, the concept of assets doesn't seem to have any positive social effects. it can only enhance the owner's wealth if i'm not mistaken. so i don't know if i would even want to reward such work at all.

money is only an incentive for work that we don't want to do. anyway, if we want to motivate people to work more by paying them more how is this connected to people owning 100 times more than others? this idea would still work if everyone had the same hourly wage and everyone could simply earn more by working overtime. as to doctors, i hope most of them don't need extra monetary reward to be motivated. if we have a problem in society with too little medical care, we might educate more doctors. presidents and CEOs i would often consider superfluous or faulty positions but i doubt that nobody would be attracted to the immense power these positions grant without the monetary incentive.

[ShowtekGER]

Yes that is what I was saying.
Its supposed to trouble you at least a little bit.

Overpopulation is a tough problem...

as much as i'm informed, rapid population growth is strongly associated with poverty and environments that are not industrialized as these people depend on their children to work and are less educated, for example in regard to contraception. cultural factors that might come with industrialization might also be important. for example, in rich countries women work and are more focused on career than on family, yada-yada. so a solution to such problems might be to end the struggles of survival of people, enhance education, and promote values of freedom and equality. of course, that's not at all happening.

[ShowtekGER]

Are they economic experts? If so, that's pretty amazing and pretty cool. I do remember reading about the recent elections in Germany, and some of the newly elected officials (as with the Pirate Party) didn't sound like experts at all to me. But if they are, if they've undergone extensive training in the principles of economics, which I'm sure would take 5-10 years, then they should count as experts.

Here in America we probably have less than .5% of our politicians trained in economics. Thus I'm not very likely to trust them at all on this issue.

perhaps your disbelief stems from the fact that really everybody in the US votes for either the democrats or republicans. you, too, have a green party (and a bunch of other smaller parties) but the only thing it gathers at elections is ridicule. it doesn't even occur to people that they could also vote for some else party so if they're disillusioned with the two major ones, they rather don't vote at all. so i'm not really surprised that you would question the professionalism of economists who do not play by the rules of the arbitrary and extremely narrow mainstream of the US two-party system.

it's interesting that you've heard of the pirate party. they had some success in the berlin elections lately. like all new parties they started with one particular interest. in their case it was the protection and privacy of the common internet user--an issue which most major parties neglected. of course, now they have to step up their other agendas as well.

[ShowtekGER]

It's not invalid to criticize them for hypocrisy, but it is invalid to criticize their argument on this basis.

if an argument is construed on the basis of a lie then it's likely that it does not work in the promised way.

[ScottieX]

managing a lot of money is not the same as owning a lot of money, right? so your talented business guy might still manage our money without being extremely rich..

yes, but determining who is talented is a talent in itself.

also, the concept of assets doesn't seem to have any positive social effects. it can only enhance the owner's wealth if i'm not mistaken. so i don't know if i would even want to reward such work at all...

well that aside this might be more about a farmer knowing that putting seed in fertile land means more production and a homeless man not knowing that.

money is only an incentive for work that we don't want to do. anyway, if we want to motivate people to work more by paying them more how is this connected to people owning 100 times more than others?

well Im not entirely sold on the idea either - but simply your doctor has a choice between working and leasure time. at $10 per hour he might not want to give up any more leasure time but at $1000 per hour he might be willing to give up some, h may also be willing to work harder in the same way that many underpaid people may not want to work hard. I suppose this is an empirical question (whether pay in any way improves output).

presidents and CEOs i would often consider superfluous or faulty positions but i doubt that nobody would be attracted to the immense power these positions grant without the monetary incentive.

so you want to select even more in favour of those with a lust for power? That is what would happen if yu removed otehr incentives I guess...