Re: WAY OT: Gas-Gouging Greenspan


"McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4oeoi1hr38ndu6ar4e77ueu08jjmpj5lq7@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:05:59 -0700, "Marcello" <marcello@xxxxxxxxxx>
> quacked:
>
>>
>>"McDuck" <wallymcduckDELETEME@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:5h0mi1pflu65qmr3f40hi78h361vah2mqm@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:59:09 -0700, "Marcello" <marcello@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> quacked:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>So to answer your point, the fact that this example so clearly
>>>>illustrates
>>>>is that you cannot base the value of earnings on time spent working
>>>>alone.
>>>>For simplicities sake, if you the cab drivers both work the same amount
>>>>of
>>>>hours yet one cabby is far more personable and makes more money as a
>>>>result,
>>>>or even better yet, if one cabbie hustled more and is able to pick up
>>>>more
>>>>customers as a result, yet in both instances the same amount of hours of
>>>>work are performed, then...well, clearly you should grasp the point by
>>>>now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never said or implied that hours worked was the main or only measure
>>> of the value of earnings, whatever that may mean. Sorry for snipping
>>> your extended example, but I have no response to it, as it does not
>>> address any issue I addressed or you addressed. If you are asking me
>>
>>You had a direct refference to the desire to take a disporportionate
>>amount
>>of money from Bill Gates becuase (in your words) he, "did not make $100
>>billion more than most workers because he worked harder or even took more
>>risks" to which the example clearly made reffernece to both points. So it
>>was directly addressed.
>>
> Sorry for any confusion. Many right wing people try to defend great
> riches for the earlthy on the grounds that they took great risks or
> worked very hard. I was just noting that those silly arguments were
> not applicable and generally are not applicable when the issue is
> great wealth. I'm not necessarily endorsing Dorothy Parker's assertion
> that "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." But I do assert
> that all great fortunes are due to the exploitation of economic rents.

And I would wholeheartedly disagree, but would love to hear a more complete
detail of your thoughts on that as oppose to just a one liner before I
discuss further.





>>
>>
>>> if I'm willing to do some redistribution in the case you gave, the
>>> answer is yes, if that is the choice of the people. But my main
>>
>>Right, but you overlook the fact that if in the same office there are 10
>>transaction coordinators and only 4 agents than the will of the people is
>>more like the desire of the less productive to take from the more
>>productive....it doesn't make it right. Why overlook the obvious solution
>>that if the less productive prefer to have the same benefits as the more
>>producitve, they can join their ranks by producing more. The exmpale
>>could
>>not have been a better illustration of this point.
>
> More productive? Wow! Only if you believe that the market always
> rewards productivity. If you believe that, it is a eligious belief,
> and I do not discuss religion in a ng <g>.

The market is what it is, and we all have the same opportunity to take
advantage by the same rules. If the means of success were so simple,
everyone would be successful, but they are not. And some try hard to
discover what it takes, some take great risk, some work hard, some create
ideas, some offer unbelievable ingenuity, some are Persistent to the
extreme, some are unbelievably dedicated, an so on and so forth. There are
successes and failure in all aspects of the market. There is also a huge
difference between those that choose to keep trying in spite of failure and
those that choose to be more productive with their alibis than their
actions. The point is there is no clear answer as to what it will take to
be successful, but there doesn't have to be and just because people success
in so many various ways doesn't take away from the fact that equality of
opportunity is the only proper goal, not inequality of results.




>
> Okay, I'll briefly address your example. A and B are both your
> commission agents. They both work equally hard and take big risks. A
> is lucky and the risk pays off, whereas B is unlucky and loses
> everything. What is your "market" solution to this inequality --- do
> we just tell B to be luckier?

What you call luck others call good and bad decisions. If you want to
punish the agent who made a smart decision in light of the fact that he
might be surrounded by perennial failures who aligning themselves with what
they believe to be good decision in light of countering conversational
wisdom, then you will limit future opportunity in the name of a completely
flawed ideal of equality.



Let me counter with this question to your example. If agent A and agent B
both take the position knowing very well that there is a high degree of
failure among those who choose the field, let's say only a 50% success rate
(in realty is even higher), and knowing this both agents decide to accept
the position. Then by what stretch of your imagination should the agent who
is successful be expected to support the agent who is unsuccessful,
especially when once considers the fact that it is impossible to define what
background and level of experience each agent has prior to the position.
Lastly, if the agent who failed winds up in a position after failing that
causes him/her to lose everything, isn't that perhaps a sign that the agent
may have made a better decision to be more prepared to take on such a risk.
For all we know, the agent who succeeded had saved for 10 years to be able
to sustain some failure for a length of time whereas the agent who failed
had no savings thus was ruined by not closing a deal fast enough. And
again, the successful agent should be expected to support the less
successful agent who just made poor decision? Obviously not.



Now before you go on to suggest that this is assuming too many factors,
understand that is the very point.you can never know all the factors of
anyone's background and what they base their decisions on. All you can ever
do in the name of fairness is assure that everyone is giving the same
opportunity, and how they deal with that opportunity is up to them.







>
> A is your risky commission agent and C is your coordinator. C has 4
> small children and a sick mother to support. A is footloose and fancy
> free. C really, relly wants to be a cmmssion agent and make the big
> bucks, but she fears that if she is unlucky, all her loved ones will
> perish, so she avoids the big risk for the sure pay check. How does
> your "market" solution solve her problem?

The solution is already in place. C at some point made the decision to have
children that would depend on her, thus limiting her ability to assume
certain risks, such as that of becoming an agent...whereas footloose A has
no dependants. These are life's choices, and we all get to make them.
Punishing those that chose one way just because things worked out better in
the end is not fairness, it's ridiculously unfair.




>
> A and D are both thinking of taking the big risk and being commission
> agents. A is born with genes that induce him to be a risk taker. D is
> born with genes that make him very, very wary of taking risks. How
> does your "market" mechanism account for this inequality?

Your comment is based on pure speculation that such a gene exists which
obviously until proven is not worthy of discussion. But I will say this, as
through my very own experience in the field I can attest that so much of
sales ability and intelligent risk taking is perceived as instinct by many,
the fact remains I have seen time and time again countless examples where
both attributes are learned, and while I obviously am not actively studying
the issue nor have the credentials to post a concrete hypotheses on the
subject, I can tell you through my experience which is abundant I believe
with certainly that these traits are learned, and not instinctive at all.
And generally those that resort to suggesting they are instinctual are
almost always very same people that chose not to put in the time to learn.




>
> A has a rich father, so he can take whatever risks he wants with the
> certainty that Daddy will come to the resque. E is born of poor
> parents and has to bear all the consequences of his risks. So A makes
> the big bucks s a commsion agent, and E is forced to play it safe.

E has the same oppotunity as eveyrone else in the field who has become
successful by starting with nothing. A just as might be less motivated (as
is often the example) becuase there is no urgency for success based on the
fact that he can rely on his father. As long as the equality of opportunity
exists, then fairness is achieved. There is not underlying rule that one
has to have money to enter the game, nor is there any rule that suggests one
has to even have any education. The rules are that you must have the proper
credentials and act according to the laws and real estate regualtions.
After that, oppotunity is wide open.



>
> We could, as you can imagine, go on and on. The point is that
> inequalities in outcome are rarely justified, and the few cases where
> they are justified are not sufficient to call into question a
> redistributive policy. Now, I do agree that really steeply graduated
> rates in the middle class cannot be justified, based on examples of
> the type you gave (and I previously gave). that is why I do not favor
> such rates. I favor exemption for the poor (the current situation),
> pretty flat rates for the middle class (pretty much what we now have)
> and fairly heavy taes onthe rich (what we used to have).

Let me take the counter approach for a second so that I may offer up a
thoughtful question. Let's hypothetically assume that redistribution of
incomes based on classes was fair...that being the case, how can you
overlook the adverse affects this eventually has on the middle and lower
classes you are trying to distribute fairness to in the first place?




>
>>
>>
>>> concern is in redistributing from the very wealthy to the middle
>>> class. It is the accumulation of great riches in the hands of a few
>>> that threatens democratic government. And it is that accumulation that
>>> is impossible to defend on fairness grounds.
>>
>>If the wealth was earned legally its impossible its suggest its not
>>compleltey fair.
>
> I suggest it is not competely fair. Indeed, I do not think i is fair
> at all.
>
>>ust becuase you choose to overlook the fact that you
>>could have the exact same oppotunity starting today to produce the same
>>results and the same wealth doesn't make it unfair. If you don't feel you
>>have the ability to achieive the same level of wealth given the same
>>opportunities, then that is your own issue, not an issue of fairness.
>
> You think that a rich kid has the same opportunities as a poor kid?
> What planet are you from? All us carbon units understand that there is
> huge inequality in opportunities everywhere, based on difference in
> genes, upbringing, family wealth and influence, on and on. Do you
> really disagree?
>
>>
>>>
>>> The point of my cab example was that within the middle class, there
>>> are many inequalities or outcome that can be defended on fairness
>>> grounds, although the defense might be a bit weak in some cases. You
>>> simply gave an additional example to illustrate my point. Such cases,
>>> however, do not undermine the legitimacy of redistribution --- only
>>> the practicality or desirability of it.
>>
>>Or more specifically, the unfairness of it. How can you justify taking
>>more
>>from the cab driver who hustles to make more money while the other cab
>>driver didn't?
>>
>>
> Because he has more money, and he "earned" that money through social
> actions. He did not invent taxi cabs or build the roads on which the
> cabs travel or create the economic opportunities that would make
> people want to take a cab, etc. ,etc. so society has a claim to a
> portion of his income, and the bigger the income, the bigger the
> claim. However, the social claim is not as strong as it is with
> millionaires and billionaires, who also exploited the system in one
> way or another (and I am assuming legal exploitation through some
> economic rent).
>

Again, if you are of the beleif that the more one becomes success the more
one exploits others, then we are never going to get anywhere.



> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> I disagree with your view that the welfare state --- the provision of
>>> a social safety net and the regulation of improper business practices
>>> --- is a bad thing. I think the welfare state has hugely expanded
>>
>>I am not suggesting that a social safety net is a bad thing at all. How
>>you
>>pay for the system and how it is run are the problems. Surely you agree
>>that if the system was a good working model that we would not have many of
>>the poverty issues we have today?
>
> The poor was have always had with us. Obviously, we mostly solved
> elderly poverty with Social Security, which was a staggering social
> problem before social Security.
>
> If you favor the welfare state, as you now claim, then you favor at
> least some redistribution. But you seem to think it is fine on the
> spending side but not on the taxing side. Quaint view. Do you want to
> tax the poor and then give it back through welfare? If not, then, like

This is only true if you consider the current welfare system, to which I
wholly object to as its a colossal failure. Your whole basis is that
welfare be run as a system of handouts, of which I never advocated nor do I
agree with in any part. A social safety net only translates into monetary
handouts on the far left.





> most flat taxers, you want some exemption level, which means that the
> rates are moderately progressive. I just want them MORE progressive
> than that. But if you go to step one with me, then you have to agree
> that you're not arguing basic principles in declining to go to step 2.
> You are just making aidffernt social choice --- well, we don;t get to
> make the choice, so really we are just advocating different social
> choices.
>
>>
>>> opportunities for most people. I think government efforts at
>>> redistribution have been inadequate, but, to the extent they have
>>> succeeeded, they have expanded opportunities. I invite you to compare
>>
>>To what extent do you feel they have succeeded?
>
> I think the natural tendancy of a capitalist state to have huge
> concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few has been mitigated by
> graduated rates. Japan and a few other countries, which had more
> effective taxes on th rich, had less inequality at the top, although
> that is now changing as well. Of course, inequality in the US is
> ingreating very rapidly, and Bush has unleashed that inequality with
> his low rates and lax enforcement policies.

And a pushing downward force on the top will always affect those in the
middle and bottom as well, a point always overlooked with the progressive
taxation theorist. Let's not also discount that perhaps the natural
tendency is also a compilation of natural motivation, dedication, and
long-term interest in success. There have always been less people willing
to pay the price for success than those give-up at the earliest failure, so
one naturally would expect such a tendency.



Its a real shame that your viewpoint includes distaste for those few who
give up so much time, dedication and hard work to succeed while insisting
they should be punished for doing so while others sit back and watch and
wait to lay claim to those very successes while doing little to succeed on
their own. I think your viewpoint on Bill Gates success could not be a more
shining example as you are clear in your distaste in his successes while
completly overlooking the thousands upon thousands who have benefited with
good and secure paying jobs for doing far less than Gates ever had to and
then suggesting Gates has exploited society in spite of the fact that he
created thousands of additional taxpayers and given out financial security
through employment to so many.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Wildepad
    ... Both Japanese agents going into Singapore and British agents going ... A secret agent who is captured and proven to be an enemy spy ... A time traveler who is proven to be from the future gets ... shot) but those are the sorts of risks people take in wartime to ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • gpg-agent help
    ... I'm trying to get gpg-agent to work with mutt, with very little success. ... Have gnupg configured to use the agent in .gnupg/gpg.conf: ... gpg: using secondary key 9C22B029 instead of primary key C2889CC9 ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Cynthia McFadden, ABC News
    ... I've trawled the 'net for an agent, manager or PR ... representative for ABC News's Cynthia McFadden, without success. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: Randy Quaid, what a jerk
    ... I find it plausible that his agent could've wisely advised Quaid to pay anything within reason to be in the movie. ... The only thing about that is, as Harkness pointed out, there was no reason to believe that the success of Brokeback couldn't have mirrored the success of Crouching Tiger, so why wouldn't an agent with his shit together have prepared for such a contingency? ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Project Future 2.03
    ... ProjectFuture helps you to make your next project a success! ... enables you to prevent and mitigate project risks, ... The risk manager enables you to make team members responsible ... Download URL: http://www.projectfuture.net/projectfuturesetup_en.exe ...
    (comp.software.shareware.announce)