Randy Smith wrote:
>
> >"A random person in the world will be chosen, and you get this choice:
> >a) Let them have $X more worth of real resources (such as by telling them
> >where
> >to find an oil reserve that would otherwise remain unfound.)
> >b) Nothing happens.
> >Which do you choose?
> >
> I would choose not to give it to him. I do so because I know that if this
> person (person Y) is wealthier, then that means that whatever wealth I have,
> is lessened. If Joe X wants to sell some property and I want to buy it, then
> have if I let this person Y have the oil wealth which would otherwise remain
> unfound, then there is more competition for the property I bidding for, and
> the price goes up.
>
That does not follow unless you believe wealth is static. There is more
competition if the person wants the same limited resource as you. There
is also one more person with more resources, which, if used wisely will
produce more wealth for you and everyone else. I would take the chance
on the competition.
> Wealth is relative, in many respects (and this does not pertain to
> heightened standards of living caused by the accumulation of the benefits of
> technology & engineering, etc).
> So why do people choose not to let this person Y have the wealth, and why do
> we not know why they make this decision?
> Because people make these types of decisions without thinking. They don't
> have to think about it. There is a survival advantage to thinking this way;
> it's bred into us over eons.
There is a survival advantage only in a world of scarcity where even
mere surival actually is pretty problematic. The trouble is we haven't
thought past genetic conditioning that is largely outmoded.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:43 MDT