re: Nice opinion piece on income inequality from CNN

quote:

---

You can get a touch preachy at times, but you generally bring an interesting thought to the table.

---

Me? Preachy? Never heard that before (literally) but I think it's certainly applicable from time to time. Thank you for the kind words, by the way and I apologize for responding so late.

quote:

---

I wouldn't go that far, but obviously America has some significant advantages and resources at it's disposal.

---

Yes, and significant is a qualifier I agree with for sure. I'll gladly rush to say that America has advantages in both people and natural resources that helped its economy.

quote:

---

Yes but there is trouble ahead. The one child rule has set China up for a demographic nightmare in a couple of decades. In the short term they are cooling as well, and must focus on a consumer based economy. I don't deny their system has worked well, but there is still plenty of trouble ahead.

---

I love my country and when I ask this it's out of sincere ignorance and wanting to find the truth: Do you think that the American economy all but collapsing had anything to do with the financial troubles around the world?

And the one child policy may be inflated a little bit -- they'll fix that problem with Russian hookers and Mail Order Brides.

quote:

---

Uh...their economy has been shitty for the better part of the last 20 years.(In regards to Japan)

---

They're the third largest by nominal GDP, they possess the fourth largest economy by purchasing power.

They hold third place for automobile production, contains the largest electronic goods industry and is one of the most innovative countries in the world at the moment. Their manufacturing center focuses on high tech goods.

They are the largest creditor nation and they run a considerable trade and net surplus.

That's hardly a bad economy.

quote:

---

No.

Tech has helped to even the playing field. There are other factors driving those economies though. Natural resources, trade policy, ect......the same shite that drives every economy.

---

I definitely should have been more clear in saying that resources (that are tied to technological advancements) play a vital role -- and I did not mean that tech alone was a factor and I apologize. It was clumsily worded.

Qualifier aside: Any nation that had developed what America had developed in regards to technology would be running everything right now -- at least any developed nation at that. America had tons of factors going for it and the economic "idea" or "concept" played little role whatsoever. Even if it were a monarchy who controlled all of those resources -- there would have still been plenty and the idea that people develop less because there's less incentive in even a dictatorship as Eddie brought up is just not true. That's a fast way to become a celebrity in countries like that, especially in regards to propaganda.

Let me finish with yet another apology, and say that I am sorry about disrupting the flow of the conversation and responding late -- I just wanted to clear up some things.

quote:

---

the idea that people develop less because there's less incentive in even a dictatorship as Eddie brought up is just not true

---

I have to disagree (obviously since I was the one who made the comment in the first place).

quote:

---

Anything can be morally wrong.

Is it inherently wrong for someone to make a large sum of money?

---

It's neutral -- Schrodinger's Cat -- until you can qualify it.

It's certainly not inherently good for someone to make a large sum of money -- except for that individual perhaps.

quote:

---

Is it inherently wrong for someone to make a large sum of money?

---

Of course not, and I don't think you'd find very many people that would say it is.

His actions were ammoral, what he did to each individual. But the simple end of acquiring money in itself has nothing to do with it.

But this is a dumb line of discussion I think.

I am much more interested in why you think capitalistic principles don't offer more of an incentive for innovation.

quote:

---

You may want to try this one again. Think A.J. Burnett. Or Albert Pujols in 2 years. Or Tom Cruise in Rock of Ages.

---

Anecdotal. Tom Cruise gets paid because he has produced over a long period of time. He has enough credibility to suffer the occasional flop.

Athletes get a shorter rope. Ask Peyton Manning.

quote:

---

Anecdotal. Tom Cruise gets paid because he has produced over a long period of time. He has enough credibility to suffer the occasional flop.

---

Kinda like anecdotal evidence of high CEO pay or golden parachutes, I guess.

quote:

---

But this is a dumb line of discussion I think.

---

It is a dumb line of discussion. But it's the underlying assumption of the whole argument. "Who could need $125M dollars (or insert random number in the millions)? It's too much." That's the underlying driving thought behind it all. If making a large sum of money is inherently neutral, the argument becomes far less weighty.

quote:

---

Just look at Nazi Germany -- a lot of those Nazi scientists were given complete clemency and lived very comfortable lives developing things for us after the war.

It depends less on economy and more on how devoted to rational development the government is. The Haber Process which was developed in Nazi Germany feeds most of the world at this point, and the fact that the regime was anti-Capitalist had -nothing to do with innovation at the time- and didn't stave any development from their ranks.

---

Hitler was one of the smartest leaders in many ways, with vast resources and complete control. But look at the top countries in terms of innovation today, US, Germany, South Korea, Sweden, etc.

quote:

---

Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct me to give money to the government to redistribute to who it deems as worthy. It says to help the poor.

---

No, it says you should give everything to the poor until you only have enough for basic necessities like food and shelter.