Re: Hollywood Economics

James (
Wed, 2 Sep 1998 20:37:25 +1000 (EST)

On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Avatar Polymorph wrote:

> I meant half my wealth after tax. I'm quite happy to live on 12-15,000 a
> year.

I think increasing the world avg. income would be far more plausible than getting every person who earns 25,000+ to pay 75% in tax or donations.

> The top 10% in America have 80% of the total wealth. It is very
> instructive to do a graph of what that means. The top 355 billionaires
> had as much wealth as the bottom 2.5 billion (1978). Do a graph of that.
> Let the Y line be population and the X line total wealth. See the
> intensity and height of the spike.

I have no doubt that the distribution of wealth is similar to those figures you have stated here. It is this distribution, however, that provides momentum in the economy. It gives incentive for individuals to earn more and provides a concentration of funds that companies can then reinvest in new technologies. This adds to the total wealth of the system.

The challenge therfore is to find a economic model that allows a more equitable distribution of wealth whilst not reducing the incentives to generate wealth.

> But debate about food costs isn't the point. It's about not helping your
> brothers and sisters in trouble, because they live far away. Australia
> produces heaps of grain and wool and coal and so forth, like the US. But
> we don't give it away cheap. Just like the English landlords in Ireland
> during the potato famine, we let them starve.

If you remove cost from the debate nothing will ever be done to help anybody.
Who pays? Who pays? Who pays?
Unfortunately these are the three question most people will ask.
Answering these questions with "It's the right thing to do." will compel only a few individuals to act. A better way to answer is to point out the benefits of paying. Bringing third world countries up to frist world standards provides many wealth generating advantages to both countries and coporations.

James -
"Where Time Becomes A Loop"