Bill Gates

[Jamie123]

The Argument: It's not fair that Bill Gates has so much money. I have hardly any at all! (Boo hoo.) He should give some of it to me. After all, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to him if he gave me a million bucks, but it would make a lot of difference to me. Isn't it unfair of him to keep it?

The Rebuttal: Why you in particular? Why not me? .... Or me? ... Or me? HEY, I WANT SOME OF IT TOO!!! (times eight billion)

The Outcome: Bill Gates is penniless, and everyone else is now 113B/8B=$14 richer.

The Moral: I feel it has something to do with "breaking Zipf's law", but I'm not sure... 

[NeuroTypical]

The rebuttal: It honestly doesn't matter which economic system you put into place, you'll end up with a tiny few who have all of it.  Communism, Socialism, whatever -ism you put into place - you simply can't get rid of it.  Russian oligarchs, Soviet politbureau, CCP party chairs and Dear Leaders, etc.  Forever.  It's a law of humanity, it's a law of nature.   1-2% of humans get all the sexual partners.  1-2% of the humans have all the power.  1-2% of the rivers on planet earth have all of the water.   1-2% of the stars in the galaxy have all the mass.  Capitalism married with a representative republic is the least horrible system humans have invented, because it tries hard to reward merit, and succeeds pretty well at separating the rich from the rulers.

The Outcome: History provides more than ample examples of when the masses overthrew the rich, or tax them into oblivion.  We already know what happens, and what will continue to happen.  It ain't utopia boy.

Edited March 21, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

1-2% of humans get all the sexual partners.

Given that 50.4% of people over 16 in England and Wales are married, I think that's an exaggeration. Though I can see it coming true, perhaps, in a society that allowed polygamy (or polyandry). Though even then...suppose a society consisted of 100 men and 100 women, and all the men were married to one woman. That would mean that 99 women had no husband, but all the men had one wife, so that's 101/200=50.5% of the population having a sexual partner. (Though to be fair, that one woman's going to find it difficult to give much pleasure to most of her husbands!)

Edited March 21, 2023 by Jamie123

[NeuroTypical]

Well, "all" is an overgeneralization.  The phenomenon is a pareto distribution:

 

You can put "number of sexual partners" on the Y axis, and "% of men" on the X axis, and you get this chart.  A tiny fraction of men have an outstandingly large number of sexual partners.  The rest of us, not so many.

You can put "economic power" on the Y, "% of humans" on the X, you get this chart. No matter what economic system you have.  A tiny fraction of humans end up in charge and owning most of the stuff.  The rest of us, not so much.

Same with rivers on planet earth, stars in the galaxy, and many other things.

Edited March 21, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

The Argument: It's not fair that Bill Gates has so much money. I have hardly any at all! (Boo hoo.) He should give some of it to me. After all, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to him if he gave me a million bucks, but it would make a lot of difference to me. Isn't it unfair of him to keep it?

This is simply a variant of the philosophy that: Because X, some or all of your wealth belongs to me. (Or at least, I should be in control of that wealth.)

How exactly is that different from theft?

[Jamie123]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, "all" is an overgeneralization.  The phenomenon is a pareto distribution:

 

You can put "number of sexual partners" on the Y axis, and "% of men" on the X axis, and you get this chart.

You can put "economic power" on the Y, "% of humans" on the X, you get this chart. No matter what economic system you have.

Same with rivers on planet earth, stars in the galaxy, and many other things.

A few months ago I started reading George Kingsley Zipf's book - he put it all down to the "principle of least effort". Unfortunately I had to give it back to the library long before I could finish it - though the idea is alive and well: I have a paper here "The Principle of Least Effort and the Zipf Distribution" by Yueying Zhu et al (doi:10.188/1742-6596/1113/01207)- though he claims the idea goes back to Guillaume Ferrero in 1894 "L'inertie mentale et la loi du moindre effort".

[Jamie123]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is simply a variant of the philosophy that: Because X, some or all of your wealth belongs to me. (Or at least, I should be in control of that wealth.)

How exactly is that different from theft?

Well...it would only be theft if you actually went and took it. It's a breaking of the 10th commandment, not the 8th.

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Well...it would only be theft if you actually went and took it.

I'm talking about the mentality/philosophy, not the act.

8 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

It's a breaking of the 10th commandment, not the 8th.

Exactly. Coveting is the mentality that motivates theft.  Socialism is just a government approved method of doing so.

See Luke 12 (specifically v 13-15, but the rest of the chapter is applicable).

Edited March 21, 2023 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

On 3/21/2023 at 5:18 PM, Carborendum said:

See Luke 12 (specifically v 13-15, but the rest of the chapter is applicable).

Isn't the point of this that it wasn't Jesus' mission to settle financial squabbles? He had bigger fish to fry.

The overall message I get here is that in the end it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are. It is whether or not you are living a worthy life that counts.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Isn't the point of this that it wasn't Jesus' mission to settle financial squabbles? He had bigger fish to fry.

The overall message I get here is that in the end it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are. It is whether or not you are living a worthy life that counts.

No.  That is the background.  But "the point" of those two verses is that some people with a conflict of interest are crying for people to be more "compassionate and charitable" when the reality is that they are merely coveting.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

[NeuroTypical]

On 3/21/2023 at 10:58 AM, NeuroTypical said:

You can put "number of sexual partners" on the Y axis, and "% of men" on the X axis, and you get this chart.  A tiny fraction of men have an outstandingly large number of sexual partners.  The rest of us, not so many.

You can put "economic power" on the Y, "% of humans" on the X, you get this chart. No matter what economic system you have.  A tiny fraction of humans end up in charge and owning most of the stuff.  The rest of us, not so much.

Same with rivers on planet earth, stars in the galaxy, and many other things.

I found another pareto chart I didn't expect:

 

And it's not really off topic either.  One of the secular reasons this was possible, is the relative post-WWII calm and economic expansion, based on the concept of private ownership of property that largely spread across the globe across the last 200 years.  Coupled with relatively strong levels of religious liberty protected by law.

Edited March 23, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Jamie123]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

No.  That is the background.  But "the point" of those two verses is that some people with a conflict of interest are crying for people to be more "compassionate and charitable" when the reality is that they are merely coveting.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

How do you know the brother who complained to Jesus didn't have a legitimate claim? Perhaps he did - only it wasn't Jesus' business to mediate between them.

This guy was talking to the Son of God who came to bring salvation from sin, and to reunite us with Heavenly Father. Whatever the rights/wrongs of the two brothers' squabble, they hardly compared to what Jesus REALLY had to offer!

Edited March 23, 2023 by Jamie123
Deleted last bit - too snarky

[Carborendum]

9 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

How do you know the brother who complained to Jesus didn't have a legitimate claim? Perhaps he did - only it wasn't Jesus' business to mediate between them. 

You're not wrong about the bolded.  That is exactly what Jesus said in v 14.

But was it a legitimate claim?  The Christian world is divided on that point.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Who's to know if the father declared such a division in the inheritance?  And the (supposedly elder) brother got a greater share because the father wanted it that way for his (the father's) own reasons?

And, it was a simple enough matter to send the vocal brother away because He simply wasn't the person to deal with such a thing.  So, we don't know about the claim.  And you're right about Jesus not being the mediator in such matters.

But in v.15 He specifically invokes the command thou shalt not covet.  Why?  It would seem obvious that the omniscient Savior recognized that this man was being covetous in his request.  Thus he warned others against it.

Conclusion: My take away is that there are many who cry foul about financial things not "being fair" when the reality is that they're just being covetous.  And, again, coveting leads to theft.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

Sorry - I missed the "not".

Edited March 23, 2023 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Conclusion: My take away is that there are many who cry foul about financial things not "being fair" when the reality is that they're just being covetous.  And, again, coveting leads to theft.

Well as far as I can remember it's never led me to theft. (And I'm about the most covetous person there is!

I've read somewhere though that under Mosaic law, attempting to gain something by legitimate means was still considered "coveting". It may have been in one of my Bible commentaries - I'll have to search for it.

P.S. Well OK - maybe I've "coveted" the biggest donut on the plate and taken it even though it wasn't the closest to me. Does that count as theft?

Edited March 23, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Well as far as I can remember it's never led me to theft. (And I'm about the most covetous person there is!

And I'm sure that you've also looked at a very alluring woman and gotten momentarily hot and bothered.  But you didn't go out and have an affair with her, did you?  But if you dwell on it and continue in that thought process...

2 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I've read somewhere though that under Mosaic law, attempting to gain something by legitimate means was still considered "coveting". It may have been in one of my Bible commentaries - I'll have to search for it.

Well, I'd disagree.  How's that?

2 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

P.S. Well OK - maybe I've "coveted" the biggest donut on the plate and taken it even though it wasn't the closest to me. Does that count?

Of course!  You donut coveting fool, you!

Cue Gomer Pile: You're going straight to heck for that one.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Carborendum

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're not wrong about the bolded.  That is exactly what Jesus said in v 14.

Interesting. I've always interpreted that as a rhetorical question. You see it differently?

It seems clear (to me, at least) that the Lord, who is the Creator, the Advocate, and the Judge, set aside those eternal roles during his mortal sojourn. To the woman taken in adultery, in the very act, his words were, "Neither do I condemn thee." How could the Creator and Judge, he who literally gave the Law, refuse to condemn someone so obviously guilty? Simply because it was not yet the time of condemnation. That time will come, inexorably and unfailingly, but for us, it hasn't come yet. Today is the period set aside for us to repent. The night will indeed come wherein no labor can be performed, so we need to take advantage while the sun shines.

For the record, I believe you both are saying essentially the same thing, and I agree with the both of you. I wish I had so absolutely little regard for money as to honestly not care whether someone or other was "fair", especially my brother.

[Carborendum]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I wish I had so absolutely little regard for money as to honestly not care whether someone or other was "fair", especially my brother.

I'm going to indulge myself on a little tangent here. 

My father died a short while ago.  No need for sympathy or well wishes.  It was no tragedy for anyone, including my father.

My brother called me.  I hadn't spoken with him in 12 years.  He asked if I wanted my share of the inheritance.  I found that to be very interesting since I basically cut most of my ties with the family about 19 years ago.  (I had to speak with him 12 years ago for a special purpose.)

I hadn't spoken with anyone but my older sister in most of that time.  I made it clear that I was no longer a part of the family.  But they still wanted to share the inheritance.  That was mind-boggling.  We hear all the time about people fighting over inheritances.  But my family, which wasn't ever very close, was reaching out to me because they at least had a sense of fairness.  Crazy world.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 3/21/2023 at 10:58 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Well, "all" is an overgeneralization.  The phenomenon is a pareto distribution:

 

You can put "number of sexual partners" on the Y axis, and "% of men" on the X axis, and you get this chart.  A tiny fraction of men have an outstandingly large number of sexual partners.  The rest of us, not so many.

You can put "economic power" on the Y, "% of humans" on the X, you get this chart. No matter what economic system you have.  A tiny fraction of humans end up in charge and owning most of the stuff.  The rest of us, not so much.

Same with rivers on planet earth, stars in the galaxy, and many other things.

“Under capitalism, the wealthy grow powerful.

Under socialism, the powerful grow wealthy.”

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

“Under capitalism, the wealthy grow powerful.

Under socialism, the powerful grow wealthy.”

With Capitalism it's man oppresses man.

With Socialism, it's the other way around.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 3/21/2023 at 6:53 AM, Jamie123 said:

The Argument: It's not fair that Bill Gates has so much money. I have hardly any at all! (Boo hoo.) He should give some of it to me. After all, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to him if he gave me a million bucks, but it would make a lot of difference to me. Isn't it unfair of him to keep it?

The Rebuttal: Why you in particular? Why not me? .... Or me? ... Or me? HEY, I WANT SOME OF IT TOO!!! (times eight billion)

The Outcome: Bill Gates is penniless, and everyone else is now 113B/8B=$14 richer.

The Moral: I feel it has something to do with "breaking Zipf's law", but I'm not sure... 

This is not the outcome...at least not conceptually. One has to consider how much wealth Bill Gates (and those like him) created in society at large while he was making his money. And, one has to consider the consequence of Bill Gates (and those like him) no longer being able to generate wealth for anyone. We need our rich people.

People who talk about economics in only terms of how much money everyone has in their pockets don't understand economics at all.

[mordorbund]

On 3/21/2023 at 8:53 AM, Jamie123 said:

The Argument: It's not fair that Bill Gates has so much money. I have hardly any at all! (Boo hoo.) He should give some of it to me. After all, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to him if he gave me a million bucks, but it would make a lot of difference to me. Isn't it unfair of him to keep it?

The Rebuttal: Why you in particular? Why not me? .... Or me? ... Or me? HEY, I WANT SOME OF IT TOO!!! (times eight billion)

The Outcome: Bill Gates is penniless, and everyone else is now 113B/8B=$14 richer.

The Moral: I feel it has something to do with "breaking Zipf's law", but I'm not sure... 

Don’t do it Bill. They’ll just spend it on drugs and booze.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Don’t do it Bill. They’ll just spend it on drugs and booze.

If I got my $14, I would invest it wisely. Probably in blue-chip stocks.

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Don’t do it Bill. They’ll just spend it on drugs and booze.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance:

but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

[Carborendum]

Just now, Vort said:

If I got my $14, I would invest it wisely. Probably in blue-chip stocks.

I got my $14 and I spent it on dinner with my wife. 

Those were the good ol' days when $14 could do that.