Let the Good Times Roll! Or, Tonight We're Gonna Party Like It's 1929

[Kuciwalker]

Others have handled this, so I really don't need to.

Actually you do, because the discussion didn't affect the basic point, that everyone is now better off.

[Kuciwalker]

Vanguard, it's this simple: a zero-sum game is one in which any benefit by one participant is exactly matched by an equal loss by another. Thus the sum of the scores at the end is the same as at the beginning. This is obviously not true of a free market, because transactions occur which make both parties better off - and, in fact everyone else.

[Kuciwalker]

No. But that's because his invention of such a reactor would be unlikely to decrease your share of the economy. Instead it would decrease the share of people who own other power plants and Saudi sheiks.

They would be worse off.

Whatever happened to the buggy-whip manufacturers?

[Kuciwalker]

If you still don't get it my initial evaluation was correct.

[Kuciwalker]

Alright, if food is plentiful then why does someone who earns minimum wage have to spend 40% of his income on it? Why isn't it 10%? Or 5%? Or some trivial amount?

Because very few people make minimum wage? And even in that case, he'll have better nutrition for less of his labor than the vast majority of humanity through history.

[Kuciwalker]

When people become rich, they simply have more money to bid against you for limited resources.

People usually become rich by expanding the pool of available resources, be they mineral resources or skilled labor or even manual labor (by better organizing it).

[Vanguard]

Actually you do, because the discussion didn't affect the basic point, that everyone is now better off.

Yeah, everyone is probably a little better off.

So what? People are a little better off in Russia too and they haven't run a real "Free market" economy in the last two thousand years.

As time goes by, people invent stuff. This makes people a little better off. That is the nature of progress.

What makes you think that income inequality helps this process?

Ok, admittedly, income inequality probably does increase the invention of some stuff. Specifically it increases the invention of stuff that rich people buy.

But alas, it also decreases the invention of stuff poor people buy. Which probably means that it causes a net loss in utility.



Also, it is worth mentioning that, while people overall are somewhat better off than they were two hundred years ago, they are much better off in countries with low income inequality.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor

State capitalism has quite an ugly head.

QFT.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
pchang you are refrencing Medi-Cal which is the California state medical system which the Federal Medicaid was modeled after. Medi-Cal tends to be a little more generous then Medicaid.

yep

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Vanguard
What makes you think that income inequality helps this process?

The richer you can get by inventing stuff, the harder you'll try to invent.

[Zkribbler]

...all citizens would benefit from the inexorable advance of technology and productivity

The stock market always goes up??

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


The stock market always goes up??

Over time, pretty much.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Yeah, everyone is probably a little better off.

I love the qualifiers "probably" and "little." Are you going to assert that a poor person today isn't in a far better position than one 200 years ago?

So what? People are a little better off in Russia too and they haven't run a real "Free market" economy in the last two thousand years.

They're a lot better off here than in Russia, if you haven't noticed.

As time goes by, people invent stuff. This makes people a little better off. That is the nature of progress.

What makes you think that income inequality helps this process?

Guess which country has been the vanguard of technological progress in the 20th century?

Ok, admittedly, income inequality probably does increase the invention of some stuff. Specifically it increases the invention of stuff that rich people buy.

But alas, it also decreases the invention of stuff poor people buy. Which probably means that it causes a net loss in utility.

There's no logic behind that. There are more poor people, thus a better econonomy of scale for inventing stuff for them. And, if you haven't noticed, the stuff rich people buy becomes stuff poor people buy. Even many of the the "poor" have cars, which were once a luxury.

Also, it is worth mentioning that, while people overall are somewhat better off than they were two hundred years ago, they are much better off in countries with low income inequality.

O RLY?

I demand evidence.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Also, it is worth mentioning that, while people overall are somewhat better off than they were two hundred years ago, they are much better off in countries with low income inequality.

Like in North Korea

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer taxing them.

But then a few of bureaucrats and politicians would control huge amounts of tax revenue and spending power, rather than Teh People directly controlling their own money