My fear of the liberal communists...

[Atropos]

Before I respond to this argument, let me comment that I found your argument interesting and well-reasoned, just wrong

All right. A few issues:

So, consider this: No one can get *rich* outside a society. Not only we are hopeless against assault outside its protection (it’s impossible to stay permanently alert), but also it’s impossible for a single man to achieve, without benefiting from other people works, the kind of fortune we see people having today. Therefore, it’s safe to say that, in many aspects, society is the cause of such prosperity.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Society protects and provides preconditions for the achievement. It does not cause the achievement.
Also note that, according to your argument, people join society to avoid physical harm and theft. Thus, society should have the right to protect them from physical harm and theft, but why anything else?

Is this possible for a man to be worth, alone, as much capital as, for example, Bill Gates? Of course not.

Why? Bill Gates made major contributions in an area crucial to the welfare of his society. Many fewer people would have computers if he had not been born. Of course, part of it is luck. Others might have done as well in the same situation. But hey, luck happens. Some are born talented, others aren't.

especially [an income inequality] that is increasing as we all seen to agree here.

Not really, no. See link: From the neocon stronghold of Berkeley.

EDIT: Crossposted with Rambuchan. I look forward to reading your response. Many economists have expanded on Ricardian theory, but Haberler's "chain of comparative advantage" theory (1930) is as good a place to start as any.

 

[MamboJoel]

Indeed such extravagant economic actors are the result of distortion in the system. Keep in mind it is designed to work under a few postulates (such as the pure immediate access to information for each actor) that can never be reached in the real world, and that when the system is at optimum benefits are null. Maybe this is the gap that produces those economic distortions (and there are others).

But at the end of the day it's not such a big distortion when you consider the entire society the rich build his wealth in (you even used the word exploited, why not btw).
Bill Gates playground is the entire world, dividing the money he got from it by the number of economic actors in the world reveals that this "distortion" we're arguing about is very marginal.

 

[Atropos]

A collection of interesting essays applying Ricardo to the modern world

 

[Rambuchan]

^ Oh, well that's something to dig into. Nice one. (Didn't find any time today to go back over your response or Fred's, will have to wait till Monday most likely).

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, there has been some interesting feedback, some quite weird assumptions, some claims that I for one find hillarious, and what seems to be a strange misreading of the article indeed.
I would love to sink my teeth in this, but unfortunately I am euphemistically speaking indisposed so the show must go on without me, I am afraid.

@luceafarul: Blunt instruments as self-identification polls are, my "Extremists!" poll would seem to indicate you're indeed right we've got a good many more libertarian-style folks here than hardcore commies.

I agree that the scientific validity of such a poll can be questioned, but also that it should surely be indicative. All the more so since it seems to be a quite good representation of my initial assumption.

 

[FredLC]

Guys - one thing: I'm getting married today. In 5 hours, actually.

I will post replys to any response, but they'll have to wait untill I'm back from the honeymoon... So don't ecxpect it until May 6, at the very least.

Regards .

 

[Richard Cribb]

Guys - one thing: I'm getting married today. In 5 hours, actually.

I will post replys to any response, but they'll have to wait untill I'm back from the honeymoon... So don't ecxpect it until May 6, at the very least.

Regards .

Congratualtions and all the best in the future, my friend.
I think your wife is a lucky woman indeed.

 

[FredLC]

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Society protects and provides preconditions for the achievement. It does not cause the achievement.
Also note that, according to your argument, people join society to avoid physical harm and theft. Thus, society should have the right to protect them from physical harm and theft, but why anything else?

A few small preliminary retorts:

1 - Society is ONE condition to success; not the only one by any means. I'm not saying that anyone in society should get rich, just that no one outside a society could do that.

2 - Society can set as goals whatever it wants. What these goals actually are is the measure of the validity of the given society, and the univerdsality is the measure of the value of the given goals. Nevertheless, I fail to see exactly where have I set for our society goals other than prrotection from harm and theft.

Regards .

 

[Atropos]

First of all: Congratulations!
Second: I (mis?)interpreted your post to mean that societies should promote equality. The measures needed to promote complete equality would necessarily outstep protection from harm and theft.
Third: what gives society the right to set goals? When people choose to join a private society (a chess club, for example), they do so for a specific reason. The club can't suddenly decide to turn itself into a bridge society. Similarly, by your own argument, people originally chose to form societies to avoid harm and theft. The society has no right suddenly to decide that it actually wants to promote equality among its members.

Nothing original here btw. I'm just paraphrasing Locke's argument regarding inalienable rights.

 

[punkbass2000]

Why? Bill Gates made major contributions in an area crucial to the welfare of his society. Many fewer people would have computers if he had not been born.

I don't see how that would be. He arguably swooped in and took a deal with IBM out from under the nose of someone else. Was he a decent programmer? Yes, but not particularly so. Gates' most important attribute was business sense, which isn't necessarily beneficial here. One might argue that we'd have significantly better operating computers had he not intervened. Of course, it's all hypothesis, and we can't know, but I don't think it's fair to conclude: "Many fewer people would have computers if he had not been born."

 

[FredLC]

First of all: Congratulations!

Thanks.

Second: I (mis?)interpreted your post to mean that societies should promote equality. The measures needed to promote complete equality would necessarily outstep protection from harm and theft.

It does have to promote equality, but the manner in which I use equality does not signify that everybody must have the same income - just that everybody's income shpould be in proportion to their factual contribution - in other words, I'd love to do away with the channeling of the surplus-value, though, admitedly, it's difficult to even identify how uch each contributions is worth by itself (specially because many do not make sense outside it's system).

Third: what gives society the right to set goals? When people choose to join a private society (a chess club, for example), they do so for a specific reason. The club can't suddenly decide to turn itself into a bridge society. Similarly, by your own argument, people originally chose to form societies to avoid harm and theft. The society has no right suddenly to decide that it actually wants to promote equality among its members.

Nothing. I spoke more of the "might makes right" than anything. Society has the right to set goals in the sense that no force can prevent it, except movements from society itself. That's why I spoke of valid social constructs and invalidy social constructs sorted by the universality of their chosen goals.

But invalidy ones are still societies, by any standard.

Nothing original here btw. I'm just paraphrasing Locke's argument regarding inalienable rights.

To which I do not disagree, as you must realize now.

Regards .

 

[Atropos]

I don't see how that would be. He arguably swooped in and took a deal with IBM out from under the nose of someone else. Was he a decent programmer? Yes, but not particularly so. Gates' most important attribute was business sense, which isn't necessarily beneficial here. One might argue that we'd have significantly better operating computers had he not intervened. Of course, it's all hypothesis, and we can't know, but I don't think it's fair to conclude: "Many fewer people would have computers if he had not been born."

Well yes, it's all speculation. But business sense is not common and not useless. It essentially means the ability to transfer assets from lower-valued uses to higher-valued uses, which is the technical definition of wealth creation.

 

[Atropos]

Nothing. I spoke more of the "might makes right" than anything. Society has the right to set goals in the sense that no force can prevent it, except movements from society itself. That's why I spoke of valid social constructs and invalidy social constructs sorted by the universality of their chosen goals.

The problem with the "universality" point is: How do you measure it? Take a poll? A majority might decide to kill a minority (e.g. in 1930s Germany where Hitler's programme was quite popular). Consult world opinion? Impossible to measure and not necessarily correct (e.g. religious persecution in the middle ages). The verdict of history? Different societies have had wildly differing goals (which rarely included economic equality), and future societies may have different goals still.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, and you mean "universality" in the sense of felicific calculus (the greatest good of the greatest number). But how do you judge that? Is it good to kill one person so that everyone else has enough food to eat?

Ultimately, the problem of setting goals is that they are ultimately set by individuals within society, and those individuals may be wrong. That's why I disagree with the notion of a common societal goal except self-preservation.

Now go enjoy yourself...You have to have better things to do this evening than read inane arguments plagiarized from Locke...

 

[punkbass2000]

Well yes, it's all speculation. But business sense is not common and not useless. It essentially means the ability to transfer assets from lower-valued uses to higher-valued uses, which is the technical definition of wealth creation.

I didn't say it was useless. I said "not necessarily beneficial". I think difference there is important. It's certainly useful for the person employing the skill. Whether or not it's detrimental to others is likely circumstantial.

 

[Atropos]

I didn't say it was useless. I said "not necessarily beneficial". I think difference there is important. It's certainly useful for the person employing the skill. Whether or not it's detrimental to others is likely circumstantial.

It's also useful to others. Take the case of a Wall Street broker. He doesn't appear to be creating much, but by buying stocks he expects to produce higher-than-expected earnings and selling those he expects to disappoint, he is ultimately transferring resources from things people don't want to things people do. It may sound trivial, but it is one of the biggest advantages of a market system, and one of the hardest things to replicate outside the market. Many of the Communist world's problems stemmed from the fact that they had no good system for determining resource allocation. This led to pots being melted down for steel (which was thereafter used for nothing at all) during the Great Leap Forward, because the government was trying to use gross steel output as a measurement of what it was "desirable" for the economy to produce.

 

[Ayatollah So]

These two supposedly morally reprehensible rich people (Soros and Gates) employ and provide livelihoods to many thousands of people directly, and who knows how many other thousands or millions of people indirectly.

But as Atropos and others have pointed out, Gates is a quasi-monopolist. By crushing alternative operating systems, internet browsers, etc. (even if only temporarily), he may have un-employed even more people than he employs.

Soros and his financial speculations on the other hand - I frankly can't see what harm these futures markets traders and secondary stock traders do. I can see that they even do some good, by driving prices up and down in anticipation of future developments.

 

[WillJ]

[After reading the OP and the rest of the thread, I grew too lazy to read Fred's stuff. Oh well, maybe later. ]

I suppose I'm a dirty little "liberal communist," although I have little respect for Gates (but I see no reason to hate Soros---Ayatollah So covered this already).

In the domain of human rights, and specifically the nature of "force," I seem to recall a rather striking divide between Anglo-Saxon philosophy and Continental philosophy, the Brits (and their American children) looking at "force" in a rather literal ("precise," if you agree with them, "limited" if you do not) sense, thinking that one is not commiting force until he punches someone or pulls a gun to someone's head, all the while the Germans and French are throwing around vague terms like "structural violence."

I tend to think like the former group, but like any human being, I certainly am disgusted by the stunning level of inequality in the world. Yes, when a corporate fat-cat "helps" a starving Ethiopian by giving him a job at a sweatshop that, for the first time in the Ethiopian's life, will allow the Ethiopian to live from day to day without fear of starvation, but not much more, I can't help but think the African deserves much more. But moving from moral philosophy to the science of economics, how in the world do we ensure that? I can't help but think that free trade and "liberal communism," complimented by some nice debt-relief and political reform, are the best poverty-killers we can ask for, as pathetic as that sounds.

 

[punkbass2000]

It's also useful to others. Take the case of a Wall Street broker. He doesn't appear to be creating much, but by buying stocks he expects to produce higher-than-expected earnings and selling those he expects to disappoint, he is ultimately transferring resources from things people don't want to things people do. It may sound trivial, but it is one of the biggest advantages of a market system, and one of the hardest things to replicate outside the market. Many of the Communist world's problems stemmed from the fact that they had no good system for determining resource allocation. This led to pots being melted down for steel (which was thereafter used for nothing at all) during the Great Leap Forward, because the government was trying to use gross steel output as a measurement of what it was "desirable" for the economy to produce.

Yes, it can be useful. But not necessarily.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

But as Atropos and others have pointed out, Gates is a quasi-monopolist. By crushing alternative operating systems, internet browsers, etc. (even if only temporarily), he may have un-employed even more people than he employs.

People have a tendency to confuse their dislike or distrust of the capitalist system with individual capitalists. The problem isnt Bill Gates. Why should he be demonized because he's the most successful practioner of the capitalist 'arts' than anyone else in the world? He's done what all business people have always done in the capitalist system, he's just better at it. At the level of a Gates or Soros, nobody at a board meeting pipes up and says "You know what? We have enough marketshare, all of us are rich. Lets leave some for our rivals, so they can make money too." Again, you build a system, and the people with the skills and inclination come in and use it. Blame the system if you want, dont blame those who make use of it, and excell at it.

Soros and his financial speculations on the other hand - I frankly can't see what harm these futures markets traders and secondary stock traders do. I can see that they even do some good, by driving prices up and down in anticipation of future developments.

I'll play the devils advocate here: Soros is no less guilty than Gates, he merely derives profits second hand, from the exploitative activities of other corporate entities.

 

[The Last Conformist]

People have a tendency to confuse their dislike or distrust of the capitalist system with individual capitalists. The problem isnt Bill Gates. Why should he be demonized because he's the most successful practioner of the capitalist 'arts' than anyone else in the world? He's done what all business people have always done in the capitalist system, he's just better at it. At the level of a Gates or Soros, nobody at a board meeting pipes up and says "You know what? We have enough marketshare, all of us are rich. Lets leave some for our rivals, so they can make money too." Again, you build a system, and the people with the skills and inclination come in and use it. Blame the system if you want, dont blame those who make use of it, and excell at it.

We're not blaming him, just punishing him.

I'll play the devils advocate here: Soros is no less guilty than Gates, he merely derives profits second hand, from the exploitative activities of other corporate entities.

This is entirely besides the point - Gates's "crime" isn't being exploitative.