Re: Economics (Was: the free software paradigm)

Don Geddis wrote:
"Duncan Rose" <duncan.rose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 26 Jul 2006 03:3:
(if I had to choose, I'd say it was bad; I think we should structure
society in such a way that the poorer get richer faster than the rich get
richer)

This is, of course, easily possible simply by making a tax system that removes
all the excess wealth of the rich. In other words, it's trivial to drag all
the rich down to the same level as the poor, and then they'd all be equal.
Are you sure you'd prefer such a society?

I'm sure I wouldn't; and I don't believe I ever said I would. Are you
saying that the only way to narrow the gap is to legislate 'a loss' on
the richest couple of percent? I'm not interested in making the wealthy
poorer, only the poor wealthier.


(It's much, MUCH harder to raise the poor up to the same level as the current
rich.)


I always enjoy a challenge! But even so, it's unnecessary to raise the
poor to the SAME level as the current rich -- I'm not sure where the
'tipping point' is where the poor are 'rich enough' and it's more than
possible no such point even exists. I like to hope though that there is
indeed a point where the material needs and wants of a sufficiently
large proportion of the (world) population are met in such a way that
people will be able to mark it on their calendars and point to it and
say "this is when the world went from being generally an unhappy and
unjust place to a generally happy and just place".

I agree this is a naive view (I forget who it was when asked how they
managed to develop a piece of software in a year (IIRC it was windowing
software) said "I didn't know it was hard"; I like to cling to the idea
that if problems are tackled rather than being put off because they're
hard, they might indeed be solved).

I am concerned with the gap between rich and poor and 'relative wealth' in
so far as the weakest in society are not really benefitting by being
'better off' (since in terms of overall spending ability, they are actually
not better off since they fall lower and lower down the 'wealth' curve).

These are not the same things, though. I agree that just counting dollars
doesn't help much, for inflation if no other reason. We really need to track
"spending power" of some kind.

But the world really is becoming wealthier over time. Poor people in the US
typically have a roof over their heads, aren't in danger of starvation or
random neighborhood violence, can watch free TV all day long, etc. Far, far
better off than the poor in many other countries, much less the poor centuries
or millennia ago.


In my opinion the jury is still out on that one. We seem to be ripping
through our natural resources at a fair old rate; I wonder how
'wealthy' the world will appear in another 100 years. Hopefully the
current trend will continue (which in the main I'd have to say is a
good trend) but there's no guarantee it's going to (invest in stocks!
the market never crashes!)

I agree that in objective terms even the poorest in our societies are
far wealthier than they were a few years ago even (ever watch those
'70s cop shows? How depressed the areas they were filmed in look...).
I'm not sure it's really possible for the very poor to be 'happy'
(maybe it is -- certainly some people seem to be able to be happy
whatever circumstances they find themselves in), and it would be
difficult to measure too, but I wonder whether today's poor are happier
or less happy than the poor that went before...

Of course the rich are even better off than that. But the truth is that the
poor are objectively better off today "in terms of overall spending ability",
than they were in the distant past.


Agreed. But are they happier for it?

I suspect that until relatively recently the bulk of humans lived on a
reasonably equal basis (impoverished by modern standards for sure, but
relative to the wealth (by any definition) available at the time, not
impoverished. Poverty is after all a relative measure -- at least it is
when *I* define it ;-).

Ah, you've _defined_ poverty to be relative. Well then of course you make
statements that others won't agree with, since nobody else means the same thing
by that word.

Typically poverty is about things like being able to provide shelter, worrying
about where your next meal is coming from, threats of death from disease or
violence, infant mortality rates, etc.


So all species other than our own is impoverished? I suspect if every
human on the planet had to deal with these problems, we wouldn't
consider ourselves to be impoverished. That would just be the way our
lives were. These things are a measure of poverty, but they are I think
still relative to our current situation.

As an example, if we assume mortality is the only measure of poverty we
use, and the life expectancy of a human male 150 years ago was 40,
would we call somebody who lived to 45 back then impoverished? Would we
call somebody who lived to 45 now impoverished, with life expectancy in
general up around the 70s?

I'm sure by the poverty metrics of 50 years ago (assuming such existed)
the people of 50 years ago did not have a significantly different
percentage of impoverished people than we do now; on the other hand, by
todays metrics we'd probably consider a significantly higher percentage
of people 50 years ago impoverished. This sounds relative to me. I
think poverty can only have meaning as a comparison against some
calculated (or measured) 'norm'.

(However, I'm sure the official definition of poverty is not the same
as the ad-hoc, bug ridden construct that I'm using.)

I'm glad that in this at least economics does not appear to take into
consideration a level of monetary liquidity in order to define poverty
which seems to be what the UK government at least does (there was a
piece in one of our newspapers a couple of years ago pointing out that
as far as the government was concerned, you are below the poverty line
if you don't go on an overseas holiday once per year -- what can I
say?).

Even given your definition above however I would argue there are far,
far more people in the world now who are unable to provide themselves
with shelter, food, and live under far more immediate threats of death
from disease or violence, infant morality rates, etc. than there were a
couple of hundred years ago. Not in Europe or the US surely, but the
world's a big place.

Note that none of these things are relative. If your ancestors often starved
to death due to lack of food, but you have reliable access to enough calories
to sustain life, most people (but not you, apparently) would say that you are
less poor than your ancestors were.


Indeed, I would agree with the majority; my question is would my
*ancestors* consider themselves to be poor? Certainly *we* consider
them to be poor (which is why I consider ideas of poverty to be
relative).

Regardless of what happened to the fate of the ultra-rich during that same
period.

In order for *my* economy to work, there must be population control. I
don't have a problem with that although I think the very concept makes
many uncomfortable. I think if we don't PLAN to control our population,
it will be controlled on our behalf at some point in a manner we'll all
find far less comfortable

Ah. I don't disagree with you actually, but I suspect you'll find that you
don't get much sympathy from other folks who are ostensibly on "your side"
(at least in the economic part of the discussion).

A socially just (Marxist?) economy, combined with radical population control.
Intriguing! An unusual combination.

I see no inherent reason why a capitalist economy cannot be socially
just. I have only a very vague idea of what Marxism is, so I can't say
whether my ideas are in line with his or not.


You should look into China's economy. The bulk of the population consists of
lots and lots of poor peasants living off the land, plus draconian population
control imposed by the government. Perhaps China is your utopia!


I'm not looking for an overall reduction in wealth, or a return to an
agriculture-based economy. China is not my ideal because I fail to see
how 'wealth' (back to my definition, sorry) is possible without
freedom. Sure, in economic terms, a totally controlled national economy
might lead to a very rapid increase in societal wealth (economic's
wealth) -- that doesn't cut it in my world view though.

I have no desire to return to a pre-industrial society, or to dispose
of technical and scientific advances (if I were I'd just turn Amish I
guess). Unlike many (I suspect) however I don't see a direct link
between a 'greedy' society and a society that is able to innovate.

As a thought experiment, perhaps we could consider where we'll be
assuming that AI is a solved problem, and robots with capabilities
exceeding our own actually exist -- who then will own the wealth? It'll
probably be the people that own the robots, but the robots are likely
to be horrendously expensive initially, so I doubt it will be the
current poor. Will we have the will and the ability to change the way
we distribute and measure wealth in our societies at such a time, once
all 'work' is performed by automatons?

-Duncan

ps. Hrm. I'm sure I was trying to make a point with that robot thing at
the end, but on rereading prior to posting it seems out of place. Oh
well, I'll leave it in and hope whatever it was comes back to me later
on...


-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don@xxxxxxxxxx
"I think," said Christopher Robin, "that we ought to eat all our provisions
now, so we won't have so much to carry." -- A. A. Milne

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - analog to digital conversion (website with answers re: conversion)
    ... wealth would confer no distinction. ... society could not long remain stable. ... basis of poverty and ignorance. ... capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were ...
    (rec.skydiving)
  • Re: it dreamed, you oughted, yet Walt never shakily asked in line with the north-east
    ... wealth would confer no distinction. ... society could not long remain stable. ... basis of poverty and ignorance. ... capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: OT: Finesse contest finalists - thanks to all!
    ... read somewhere that the distribution of wealth in this country is now ... and more people moving to upper income brackets in the last 10 ... Home ownership is at an all time high, and even those defined as "poor" ... society. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: the free software paradigm
    ... theory, about the wealth of nations and whole economies, is a different animal. ... The poor are "losing" compared to the rich more than they were ... No doubt there are indeed people who "make a loss" in the real economy. ... in so far as the weakest in society are not really benefitting by being ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: What PVR?
    ... wealth would confer no distinction. ... society could not long remain stable. ... basis of poverty and ignorance. ... capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were ...
    (sci.engr.lighting)