Bill Gates


Jamie123
 Share

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Vort said:

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

Well, to be clear and transparent, it would be a crapton more than $14.  This is the distribution of family wealth data: 

image.png.10e0d9fe0c101c875d46ea851cea8d5d.png

 

Again: This is what the chart looks like, at pretty much any time in human history, under pretty much any form of government.  You might need to replace the dollar sign with something like power or influence or cows or women or guns, but it's pretty much always there. 

Again: Human history is replete with examples of the masses usurping that top 5% and taking their stuff.  And again, it always results in another chart like this 20 years later.  

I mean, just looking at the chart, it seems like a foregone conclusion - just take half of that 99th percentile, and quadruple or quintuple the bottom half's standard of living.  Problem is that humans remain human.  You'll have exactly the same amount of success with that plan, as a similar plan to take the water in the largest 5% of rivers, and making it flow to the bottom half of the rivers.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some young online acquaintances in Russia.  The state run schools teach one thing, but their cultural memory says something else.  They say stuff like this: "Communism was working because everyone was equally poor.  Then things fell apart and capitalism came in and wrecked everything because now there are rich oil oligarchs that take all our money and that's why we're poor."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I have some young online acquaintances in Russia.  The state run schools teach one thing, but their cultural memory says something else.  They say stuff like this: "Communism was working because everyone was equally poor.  Then things fell apart and capitalism came in and wrecked everything because now there are rich oil oligarchs that take all our money and that's why we're poor."

Is that the same cultural memory that "young" online Americans have.... you know...the ones tearing down statues of the founding fathers, etc?

Nice to know young Russians are as delusional about being "poor" as Americans are...as they complain online on their laptops and/or iPhones about how "poor" everyone is. I was going to add something about while sipping their Starbucks coffee...but I guess it's "Stars" coffee now.

 

Edit: I don't really know anything about the state of poverty in Russia. I'm just grumpy and bitter about online complaints.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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.

I've heard so much about the theory of "trickle down": when the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. You can argue it both ways, but I'd only be convinced (either way) by empirical evidence.

One thing's for sure: Liz Truss put her trust in the "trickle down" theory (with her policies of massive tax cuts for the rich) and the kick-back she got cost her her job. (She was the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British history, and it's not like she had a hard act to follow!)

Edited by Jamie123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, to be clear and transparent, it would be a crapton more than $14.  This is the distribution of family wealth data: 

image.png.10e0d9fe0c101c875d46ea851cea8d5d.png

Again: This is what the chart looks like, at pretty much any time in human history,

This is simply a transformation of a bell curve with a cosine wave.  It is a mathematical pattern that is simply going to show up in any society. 

The best way to flatten the curve is to encourage people of great wealth to have LOTS of kids.  And encourage the poorer people to have fewer kids.  But that is the exact opposite of the welfare state.

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You might need to replace the dollar sign with something like power or influence or cows or women or guns

The word "juxtaposition" comes to mind. :) 

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I've heard so much about the theory of "trickle down": when the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. 

But this isn't even a valid way to think of it. The rich getting richer isn't going to help the guy sitting in a cardboard box. People that criticize "trickle down" economics misunderstand it.

It's better to think of it like this: strong economies are good for everyone. Strong economies make the rich richer. Strong economies provide more jobs for the poor. Strong economies means a strong middle class.

Capitalism creates strong economies better than any other system ever has. Capitalism in the US has created a world-wide stronger economy. Everyone, everywhere has benefited from it. But capitalism also creates Bill Gates. If capitalism is killed, the strength of the economy will falter. Taking money away from Bill Gates is, definitionally, destroying capitalism.

50 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

but I'd only be convinced (either way) by empirical evidence.

Anyone who denies the clear empirical evidence of the strength of economies generated by capitalism is being willfully blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I've heard so much about the theory of "trickle down": when the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. You can argue it both ways, but I'd only be convinced (either way) by empirical evidence.

One thing's for sure: Liz Truss put her trust in the "trickle down" theory (with her policies of massive tax cuts for the rich) and the kick-back she got cost her her job. (She was the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British history, and it's not like she had a hard act to follow!)

It is important to note that the term "trickle-down" was originally coined by those who were critical of the theory.  Most notably, it was used by Democrats to criticize Reagan's supply-side economic policies.  I am not aware of any quote from the Reagan administration that agreed with that terminology.

So, if you want to understand how supply-side economics helped the US come out of the 70 Stagflation Era, then ditch the "trickle-down" terminology and recognize what worked and what didn't.

The reality of wealth recognizes two principles that are very often proven true.

  • During down-turns, the wealthy stay wealthy.
  • During up-turns, everyone gets more wealthy.  Percentage-wise, the poor gain more than the wealthy.

I don't know of any significant examples in history where either of these have not been true. There are some wealthy who lose their shirts during a downturn.  But for the most part (for example) a billionaire becomes a millionaire and doesn't really change his lifestyle.

So, if we simply take measures to boost the overall economy and don't care who gets the credit, any improvement to the overall economy will help the poor get out of poverty.

In stating this, we need to recognize that virtually every economic system in history NEEDS a certain percentage of people to be poor and a certain percentage of people to be wealthy.  But only capitalism allows for the "poor" to have as high a standard of living as we've seen in the modern era.  So, it would be fair to say that even the poor people are rich in the United States.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Anyone who denies the clear empirical evidence of the strength of economies generated by capitalism is being willfully blind.

That, or lives a miserable life and wants to blame anything else for it. You never see a happy and grateful socialist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:
18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You might need to replace the dollar sign with something like power or influence or cows or women or guns

The word "juxtaposition" comes to mind. :) 

If Johnny Lingo taught us nothing else, it at least taught us that female worth can be measured in units of bovine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It is a mathematical pattern that is simply going to show up in any society. 

The best way to flatten the curve is to

So, it's either something that shows up in any society, or it's something that can be changed by human behavior.  I don't think you can have it both ways.  Which way is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, it's either something that shows up in any society, or it's something that can be changed by human behavior.  I don't think you can have it both ways.  Which way is it?

Yes, you can have it both ways.

The liberal economist also recognizes the inevitability of said curve (which was what I was referring to when I said that will show up in any society).  But (at least in past generations) liberals only objected to the shape of the curve (particularly the steepness at the end). 

So, to satisfy those liberal sensibilities (which declares a 45 deg line as the optimal) I offered the solution based on two principles which end up being (off the top of my head) 85% accurate in determining success/merit.

  • Genetics heavily factor into the merit of an idividual
  • Their upbringing (particularly the principles of work ethic and valuing education, loving what you do, being honest in your dealings, etc.)

Both of those are heavily related to family.

So, if we do as I suggest, the curve will become very close to a 45 degree line.  At least, it will be closer to the 45 deg line than any point in history.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... 

I am having a problem figuring out how to respond.  Bill Gates is not a model of a person to whom I have any respect.  I have no problem seeing him penniless.   In all honesty I believe a penniless Bill Gates would not fulfill even a remote resemblance to justice.  However, I am aware that are many wealthy individuals that are charitable with money and more.  In my mind you have picked one of the worst examples for what I think is the point you are attempting to make.

Perhaps I am somewhat too prideful but I am of the mind that there needs to be greater efforts to assist all to be more self sufficient rather than to be bound (in bondage) to others.  I see nothing moral in those of means being more intent in helping someone than those in need are in helping themselves.  If fact, I wonder if those of meager means are the worse example of what is moral that think those of financial means should exert more to help others that those of meager financial means or the others themselves.  

In essence I have little respect for anyone that expects others to be more concerned or helpful than they are willing to be themselves.  Money is seldom the greatest need of anybody, but rather it is what greedy and despiteful people are the most concerned about - esepcially in others.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Money is seldom the greatest need of anybody

It's easy to despise money when you have plenty of it. Look at Archibald Grosvenor! (*)

* OK I'm going to have to explain that reference. Archibald Grosvenor is the protagonist of a little-known operetta called Patience, by W.S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. (Better known for such things as The Gondoliers and The Pirates of Penzance.) Grosvenor is an "idyllic poet" who - unlike his rival Reginald Bunthorne - despises all things worldly. Despite being fabulously rich, he is genuinely in love with a simple milkmaid (Patience, the heroine of the piece), while Bunthorne has chosen to marry whichever of his many lady admirers (the "rapturous maidens") wins a "raffle" he has organised. There's also a platoon of soldiers who march around sillily, one of whom is duke who has joined the army in the hope of "being bullied" (something he has never had the pleasure of experiencing). Great piece. Pity it's not performed more often! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

(if)

👍

Yeah. If...  What do you suppose we could do to effect that?

What social program could possibly be implemented by government which would provide this result?  None really.  But there have been some social orders that actually depended on this idea.  And it seemed to work out quite well. When applied with proper controls.

Let's see... I believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon... did something that eventually provided the results I'm talking about.  And it appears that the Mormon pioneers did a little dabbling in that system as well... but, of course, that's just anathema today.  Instead, the mirror image of that is the norm.  Thus the pattern gets worse, not better.

So... Yes.  The pattern we see is inevitable.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share