A summary of trickle down economic theory:

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Even if all the poor were to act just like you there would still be the same amount of poor, because the number of opportunities for them hasn't changed."

If all the poor got better skills, they could bake a bigger pie.

My grandparents had about nothing; one granddad had an alcohol problem. My parents and their siblings started out with pretty much nothing.

It wasn't possible for them to study, back in the 60s. But they worked themselves into middle class (with the exception of one uncle of mine, but that's a rather odd story). I used the opportunities they could offer me, but guess what, some of my cousins are "slipping". Maybe it's really more about work than handouts?

I'm not talking about handouts. I'm talking about work and wages.

[Agathon]

There's no such thing as equality of opportunity. Believing in it is like believing in free will (at root the basis of the beliefs are the same).

If we equalize for social class and upbringing, then why don't we equalize for genetic endowment (since that is an accident). And if you want to talk about some people's natural propensity to work harder, then whether or not it's genetic or environmental it's largely a matter of luck. Of course if we equalize for all these things we will have an equal outcome (in the sense that everyone will have the same chance of achieving the good - in other words a dice throw). And more to the point, you can't set them aside without agreeing to some semi-religious view of what persons are.

EOO is just the middle class white people's favourite conception of equality.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

This isn't the 19th Century industrial world of Marx anymore, where you have evil capitalists and downtrodden workers, and nothing in between except the few middle class lackeys and stooges of the evil capitalits.

Really?

Been to a third world sweatshop lately?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Originally posted by Arrian
I don't happen to believe that opportunity is limited. I do agree that people who grow up poor (such as MtG) have less going for them than people who grow up with money (me, for instance).

Total contradiction

Not at all. If I had been born with the Silver Spoon brand Unequal Opportunity Taken from the Sweat of the Exploited Working Man^TM kit, and issued my million dollar trust fund at birth, I'd be farther along in life with less effort expended. The fact that I was in the wrong baby line so the stork didn't deliver my kit when he broght me hasn't really held me that far back, though.

Like the Marine Force Recon motto: Adapt, Improvise, Overcome

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Please make the connection between finite opportunity and zero sum game.

It's the connection you claim that "the rich" have opportunity unfairly handed to them, while "the poor" are unjustly deprived of opportunity, and the remedy is to tax the wealth of "the rich" to the point where you can distribute that wealth to the poor. If it's not zero sum, then why is your proposed "remedy" to what you see as a problem simply to transfer wealth from one party to another?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
There's no such thing as equality of opportunity. Believing in it is like believing in free will (at root the basis of the beliefs are the same).

Since free will is reality, thanks for affirming the achievability of equal opportunity.

If we equalize for social class and upbringing, then why don't we equalize for genetic endowment (since that is an accident).

Your first commie fallacy is that we "equalize" for anything. That's just an excuse for a tribunal of party members sitting on their fat privileged asses taking out their limp-dicked frustrations on the intelligentsia and the bourgoisie. Next century, please.

Equality of opportunity means a removal of artificial barriers, such as race or gender discrimination, systematic lack of access to education, etc. We don't equalize, we remove artificial barriers, and let people work and educate themselves towards the outcomes on their own.

And if you want to talk about some people's natural propensity to work harder, then whether or not it's genetic or environmental it's largely a matter of luck.

Bull****, it's a matter of personal choice. Back in my hippie kid days, several friends of mine and I knew this rather friendly surfer-chick named Nola who lived in Santa Cruz. We were in our teens, cyclist/rock-climber/surfer hippies (I was a diver hippie, not a surfer one), and she was about 15 years older, always gave us a floor or sofa to crash on, and a surfboard to borrow. Never married, never had a b/f (or g/f), but had six cats and six surfboards and a beat to **** VW squareback.

After a while, she decided she wanted to go to where there was real surfing, so she moved to Hawaii, where she split her working time between picking pineapples and driving tourists around on this bicycle rickshaw thing. Mostly, she just surfed. And you know what? She was happy and enjoyed life, and did what she wanted. It's not about luck or genes, it's about people choosing what they want to do in life. Or not choosing, and just drifting through. In Nola's case, she had what she wanted and did what she wanted.

Of course if we equalize for all these things we will have an equal outcome (in the sense that everyone will have the same chance of achieving the good - in other words a dice throw). And more to the point, you can't set them aside without agreeing to some semi-religious view of what persons are.

EOO is just the middle class white people's favourite conception of equality.

That's why we don't equalize. We simply remove artificial barriers, and let people work towards the outcomes they desire.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


Really?

Been to a third world sweatshop lately?

Would the little anonymous electronic assembly plant next to the Burritos Bol Corona four blocks from my old house here qualify, or do you really want textiles? (Not much of that here, we're a ways away from cotton country.) I live in the third world, not in a subsidiary country of the US that might as well be it's 51st state.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Investment does not nessarily mean playing around with the stock market. It could mean building factories and buying equipment.

True, but most investors don't have the time or critical mass to make direct investments like that, and hence use the market.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Sure can. That's what handicraft is. Take a piece of wood, carve something out of it, sell it to tourists. Repeat. Sure, having money makes it much easier to make money.

The wood is capital, as is access to tourists.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious

How can raw materials have any value. Labor is required to give them any value. They have no value without it.

So fresh water has no value, or do you include slurping into your thirsty maw as labor?

[Berzerker]

If you're a libertarian, you ignore the issue entirely and launch into a tirade about how all taxes are theft and immoral, and therefore, you're within your natural rightsTM to shoot government officials for attempting to steal your property.

[Berzerker]

If "trickle down" doesn't work, explain the economic boom the US saw over the last 20 years.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


This just isn't true. In a society where there are decent jobs for everyone, almost everyone will work. We had full employment in New Zealand when I was growing up - everyone worked.

You are guilty of a common misperception, namely that what is valued in one society will necessarily be valued in the same way in another society. The same decent job might produce 100% employment in one area, and 20% in another based on cultural and economic variations.

The term "decent jobs" seems a bit vague. I would actually agree with your statement if by decent job you mean receiving head from a supermodel for $40K a year, and a month of vacation.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Please make the connection between finite opportunity and zero sum game.

It's quite rational, in your world it's 1/1.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If "trickle down" doesn't work, explain the economic boom the US saw over the last 20 years.

What the hell are you talking about? Wages are barely changed at all in 20 years.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander
So fresh water has no value, or do you include slurping into your thirsty maw as labor?

Fresh water like in the mountains? It has no value to you until you drive up there and get it. Therefore without labor it has no value.