Bill gates, the rich, and "wealth creation"

[msmith537]

@newcomer

Your rebuttal of my claim looks at your claim with irony. Aside, of course, from the fact that it invalidates your claim.

I don’t think it does (if I read this nearly incoherent sentence correctly).

You asked how do we reward contributions as a society. I don’t see keeping what you built as a “reward”. By allowing people to keep what they make, we encourage them to make more. When you give people handouts and free services, they tend to look for more handouts.

And I agree with what you say about free markets. Subsidies, cartels, and socialized services aren’t “free market”. However, most economists do recognize that the free market isn’t always the best way to make sure everyone’s needs are met.

[newcomer]

@msmith537

I don’t think it does (if I read this nearly incoherent sentence correctly).

You asked how do we reward contributions as a society. I don’t see keeping what you built as a “reward”. By allowing people to keep what they make, we encourage them to make more. When you give people handouts and free services, they tend to look for more handouts.

Going back to your earlier post… Bill Gates was a dropout. It’s ironic that in a debate about wealth you argue that it has to do with who goes to finest school vs. someone who drops out. However, he dropped out for entirely different reason so perhaps we should not use him as an example at all.

My claims about illusion of free market and how Government (and thus, public) manages market is toward the idea that government (or, public) should have a say in how is wealth distributed.

Prime example is 2008 financial crisis and that event and government role in it should have been a corner stone of a more just and equitable wealth distribution paradigm. But, as we can witness these days, it’s all back to how things were before and no essential difference can be noted.

[msmith537]

@newcomer

Going back to your earlier post… Bill Gates was a dropout. It’s ironic that in a debate about wealth you argue that it has to do with who goes to finest school vs. someone who drops out. However, he dropped out for entirely different reason so perhaps we should not use him as an example at all.

I suppose it depends on whether you believe school is for giving people the tools they need to be successful, or whether it’s a golden ticket to higher income. Gates dropped out of school because he already had already built up the technical knowledge he would need.

You can do that with computers. They are relatively cheap and people with programming aptitude often teach themselves because they like it. It’s a bit different if you want to be a mechanical engineer or a lawyer. You need to have certain academic and professional qualifications to do those jobs.

[John_Mace]

@msmith537

I suppose it depends on whether you believe school is for giving people the tools they need to be successful, or whether it’s a golden ticket to higher income. Gates dropped out of school because he already had already built up the technical knowledge he would need.

So did Jobs.

You can do that with computers. They are relatively cheap and people with programming aptitude often teach themselves because they like it. It’s a bit different if you want to be a mechanical engineer or a lawyer. You need to have certain academic and professional qualifications to do those jobs.

Actually, with law, all you need to do is pass the bar in order to practice. Not sure if you need a degree to get your P.E. certification.

Of course, doing either of those w/o the appropriate degree might be next to impossible for most people.

[Evil_Captor]

@Mijin

That’s why personally I’m fine with there being a robust social safety net.
Not because there’s an evil conspiracy among the rich, just that in Capitalism, the more capital you have, the more you have the opportunity to earn in the future.
I want to live in a society where fewer people (ideally none) are in a poverty trap.

It’s not just an ethical thing. People who are not in poverty traps are more able to start new businesses and bring new services and products to the market, improving the economy. But our conservative and libertarian brethren hate the middle class so much that they maintain that the middle class contributes very little in this respect, being peasants and all.

[Evil_Captor]

@magellan01

This is laughable. Let me ask you this, using the metric you put forth above, can you point to anyone that was necessary—essential—to their innovation, invention or entrepreneurship? Henry Ford? Thomas Edison? John Rockerfeller? The Google founders? Anyone?

Henry Ford, definitely not necessary, he had all sorts of competitors, various of them would have hit on the same ideas he did, perhaps later, but that’s about all you can say. Thomas Edison was famous for stealing others’ work, so he was not an innovator, just a skilled thief and marketer. Rockefeller I’m not to sure of, did he do anything at all innovative? I thought he was just a very successful robber baron.

Now Google was a far better search engine than its competitors, but it’s hard to believe that no one else in the industry would have come up with similar algorithms and search techniques.

So, no. I am not an adherent of the Cult of Personality.

[Evil_Captor]

@Martin_Hyde

Please show it here, because I can tell you any such study would have nothing to do with the United States. In history all societies that had high degree of wealth inequality were usually poorly developed countries with limited freedoms, as was typical in the entire Western world before the mid-19th century when you had greater freedoms emerge and clamoring for greater wealth equality. But that’s because of situations unique to those times and places.

It’s worse than I said it was! –article from that liberal bastion, The Economist.

quote from said article:
But now the economics establishment has become concerned about who gets what. Research by economists at the IMF suggests that income inequality slows growth, causes financial crises and weakens demand. In a recent report the Asian Development Bank argued that if emerging Asia’s income distribution had not worsened over the past 20 years, the region’s rapid growth would have lifted an extra 240m people out of extreme poverty. More controversial studies purport to link widening income gaps with all manner of ills, from obesity to suicide.

You cannot point to any society in history with high wealth inequality and very high standard of living, even for its poorest members. That’s where we are with the United States.

I’m not saying the United States is THERE but it’s really hard to argue that we aren’t headed that way, and headed fast, and that it would not be better if we were not.

[msmith537]

@Evil_Captor

Henry Ford, definitely not necessary, he had all sorts of competitors, various of them would have hit on the same ideas he did, perhaps later, but that’s about all you can say. Thomas Edison was famous for stealing others’ work, so he was not an innovator, just a skilled thief and marketer. Rockefeller I’m not to sure of, did he do anything at all innovative? I thought he was just a very successful robber baron.

Now Google was a far better search engine than its competitors, but it’s hard to believe that no one else in the industry would have come up with similar algorithms and search techniques.

So, no. I am not an adherent of the Cult of Personality.

You are arguing against your own point. The whole reason there were lots of people trying to build better cars, light bulbs, oil companies and search engines is because there was a great deal of money to be made doing it. Ultimately the market decided that it wanted Ford, Edison, Google and Standard Oil.

@Evil_Captor

But our conservative and libertarian brethren hate the middle class so much that they maintain that the middle class contributes very little in this respect, being peasants and all.

No, what economic conservatives and libertarians hate are people who do nothing and then point to those who have worked hard to build successful business and then say “it’s unfair that you have so much while I don’t have anything.”

[magellan01]

@Evil_Captor

Henry Ford, definitely not necessary, he had all sorts of competitors, various of them would have hit on the same ideas he did, perhaps later, but that’s about all you can say. Thomas Edison was famous for stealing others’ work, so he was not an innovator, just a skilled thief and marketer. Rockefeller I’m not to sure of, did he do anything at all innovative? I thought he was just a very successful robber baron.

Now Google was a far better search engine than its competitors, but it’s hard to believe that no one else in the industry would have come up with similar algorithms and search techniques.

So, no. I am not an adherent of the Cult of Personality.

So, to answer my larger question, you cannot point to a single individual, is that right? Not one?