Redistribution of wealth

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

And clearly, these people work hard to achieve their level of skill. So how does this set of facts imply that their wealth is determined by luck of society's' taste, not their hard work?

First, if you'll read what i said, you'll realize i didn't say it was all values based. I said it was a combination. Me and Chuck may need logic courses, but may i recommend some reading comprehension courses for yourself.

Secondly, If you fail to see how you've already answered your own question, either you're willfully ignorant, or in addition to your reading comprehension courses, you need to be joining me and Charles in logic class.

Simply put, your own analogy makes specific note of society putting the value on someone's ability. What more needs to be said?

If you work hard and are good at something that society views as worth only $40,000, you make $40,000. If you work hard and are good at something that society views as worth $400,000, then you make $400,000. The luck comes in with what it is you're good at and how that fits in with what society values. It doesn't mean the $400,000 guy works harder than the $40,000 guy.

Now if the only people that could play a nose harp was someone that had a really really big nose, then we would be looking at a combination of luck and hard work, but not luck alone.

And would not being born with a God given talent that society values at a premium equate to being born with a big nose?

I'm dying to be enlightened Doove.

You're welcome.

[pjorourke]

Well thanks Jayne -- I think?

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Doove

It was "where the money is at" because it was the sport where he was good enough to make the money. Assuming he even left high school with a "plan" to make a career out of it. I'm sure he had a "hope" of making a career out of it, but i doubt it was his #1 plan until about his Junior year of college.

I find it impossible to believe that anyone can be so naive as to think that a ML shortstop or center-fielder or pitcher could be an NFL QB or running back, or left tackle, or an NBA point guard or power forward, if that's what he'd rather be. Or vice-versa.

I mean, come on already. Most pro athletes couldn't even make it in a different position in their own sport, yet we're supposed to believe they could make it in some position of a different sport?

This is like PJ debating with Chuckie about Fortune 100/500 CEOs...sometimes some of us in real life know what we are talking about...

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

Simply put, your own analogy makes specific note of society putting the value on someone's ability. What more needs to be said?

If you work hard and are good at something that society views as worth only $40,000, you make $40,000. If you work hard and are good at something that society views as worth $400,000, then you make $400,000. The luck comes in with what it is you're good at and how that fits in with what society values. It doesn't mean the $400,000 guy works harder than the $40,000 guy.

1) That would be called paying attention to the rules of the game. If you lose at chess because you are playing checkers, don't blame the game.

You are missing two factors -- 1) we largely choose what we want to do. Some do it early by decisions not made -- e.g., sitting on you ass and getting fat instead becoming an athlete, skipping homework, etc. So if you chose to work at something that society only values at $40K, don't bitch if that all you make. Nobody becomes say a bus driver because they are good at it.

2) The $400,000 guy works differently than the $40K. Some work harder, others not so much.

Life is choices. Make bad ones you probably won't win even with hard work. Make good choices and work hard, you might win. How is that so difficult to understand?

[Doove]

Gnadfly, for your wiki info to be relevant, we'd have to also assume that Montana, on top of being eligible for a basketball scholarship, was also good enough to be drafted, and excel enough to make an NBA team. Given the percentage of Div 1A athletes who actually get drafted and succeed in the pros, your citation is as good as entirely irrelevant.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

sometimes some of us in real life know what we are talking about...

And then there's you.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

1) That would be called paying attention to the rules of the game. If you lose at chess because you are playing checkers, don't blame the game.

And if you're playing chess, and 3 moves in you're deemed the winner simply because you took the black side, don't pretend you didn't luck into a win.

You are missing two factors -- 1) we largely choose what we want to do. Some do it early by decisions not made -- e.g., sitting on you ass and getting fat instead becoming an athlete, skipping homework, etc. So if you chose to work at something that society only values at $40K, don't bitch if that all you make. Nobody becomes say a bus driver because they are good at it.

And you're missing the fact that if we don't have waitresses, or Walmart clerks, or social workers, capitalism fails. So instead of criticizing and even belittling them for being poor.....which comes full circle to the original point brought up in the thread.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Life is choices. Make bad ones you probably won't win even with hard work. Make good choices and work hard, you might win. How is that so difficult to understand?

It all depends on your definition of "win."

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Doove

And if you're playing chess, and 3 moves in you're deemed the winner simply because you took the black side, don't pretend you didn't luck into a win.

Say what?!?

How could a player conducting the black pieces possibly be "deemed" the winner of a chess game within 3 moves, unless white was stupid enough to play f3 (or f4) and g4 on 2 of the first 3 moves? Chess is not a "socialist" game where the wealth is "spread around"; you actually have to play better than your opponent.

Originally Posted by Doove

And you're missing the fact that if we don't have waitresses, or Walmart clerks, or social workers, capitalism fails. So instead of criticizing and even belittling them for being poor.....which comes full circle to the original point brought up in the thread.

People now working as waitresses, Wal-Mart clerks, and social workers would be soooooo much better off under a typical socialist system, wouldn't they?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

People now working as waitresses, Wal-Mart clerks, and social workers would be soooooo much better off under a typical socialist system, wouldn't they?

I don't think anyone said anything about forcing a socialist system on the country. See, this is the problem. Unless you fall for the crap that the free market is a utopian ideal, you're labeled a socialist, or a communist, or whatever.

I accept free market capitalism. But you won't ever convince me that it's so perfect and fair that some tweaks aren't justified.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

I accept free market capitalism. But you won't ever convince me that it's so perfect and fair that some tweaks aren't justified.

Then WTF are we arguing about? Nobody said it was perfect. And nobody dumped on waitresses, Walmart ee, etc.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Then WTF are we arguing about?

Um, the redistribution of wealth?

Nobody said it was perfect. And nobody dumped on waitresses, Walmart ee, etc.

On the contrary, it seems to me that arguing against any "redistribution of wealth" is a de-facto argument that capitalism, in it's current form, is simply too perfect to mess with.

And there's a lot of dumping on poor people, so please don't claim that nobody dumped on waitresses or Walmart employees.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

Um, the redistribution of wealth?

On the contrary, it seems to me that arguing against any "redistribution of wealth" is a de-facto argument that capitalism, in it's current form, is simply too perfect to mess with.

And there's a lot of dumping on poor people, so please don't claim that nobody dumped on waitresses or Walmart employees.

"Correcting capitalism" does not involve redistributing wealth. Redistributing wealth is socialism. Correcting capitalism is establishing some rules and parameters on the system.

We had a capitalist system in the 40's, back when government checks to people amounted to <5% of expenditures. Now its >50%. That is creeping socialism that is now getting full blown and strangling the system.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

"Correcting capitalism" does not involve redistributing wealth. Redistributing wealth is socialism. Correcting capitalism is establishing some rules and parameters on the system.

So we agree that rules and parameters on capitalism are ok. Now we just need to agree on which rules and parameters.

We had a capitalist system in the 40's, back when government checks to people amounted to <5% of expenditures. Now its >50%. That is creeping socialism that is now getting full blown and strangling the system.

And i'm guessing that in the 40's, the top 400 people in America didn't make as much as the bottom 50% of Americans. And the average CEO didn't make 400X what the average worker made. So fix that, and maybe there wouldn't be the need for >50% of expenditures being doled out in government checks to people.

If you think the 40's were so great for Capitalism, then you should have little problem with wealth being distributed in such a way that it equated to how things were in the 40's.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by Doove

So we agree that rules and parameters on capitalism are ok. Now we just need to agree on which rules and parameters.

And i'm guessing that in the 40's, the top 400 people in America didn't make as much as the bottom 50% of Americans. And the average CEO didn't make 400X what the average worker made. So fix that, and maybe there wouldn't be the need for >50% of expenditures being doled out in government checks to people.

If you think the 40's were so great for Capitalism, then you should have little problem with wealth being distributed in such a way that it equated to how things were in the 40's.

I'm wondering if you are a Clinton(D) fan and noticed the rules and parameters he REMOVED. i.e., Glass-Steagle... I doubt we would have had the banking/finance market collapse with those barriers still in place. There needs to be barriers like the ones GS provided.