Topic: What we need is FAIR markets, not free markets. - page 3. (Read 10485 times)

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2011, 06:20:28 AM

You give them enough free market so that the most intelligent ones get more money and create more wealth and you give them enough government intervention so that the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution is not that high.

Apart from what myrkul is saying, here you are supposing governments are a force towards equality, you are supposing that politicians actually take from the rich to give to the poor (in simple terms). What we see in reality is the opposite. Governtments are a force that creates more inequality by favoring the corporate budies of the politicians at the expense of the middle and poor classes, that are left with no oportunities, expensive prices and some defective government minimum services so they dont die and can keep working.

Findeton

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

You give them enough free market so that the most intelligent get more money and create more wealth and you give them enough government intervention so that the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution is not that high.

'K. But remember that every intervention punishes those who have made good decisions, and rewards those who have made bad decisions.

People will see this, and act accordingly. Incentives matter, after all. How long do you think it will take before you've set a ceiling and a floor, so nobody tries too hard, and nobody worries too hard about failure? How long before those two meet?

Just because taxes exist and just because the tax system is progressive doesn't mean the richest won't want to earn more money. So we'll reach no ceiling. The same for the "floor theory". I don't like extremes, I'm not defending communism nor neoliberalism.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

You give them enough free market so that the most intelligent get more money and create more wealth and you give them enough government intervention so that the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution is not that high.

'K. But remember that every intervention punishes those who have made good decisions, and rewards those who have made bad decisions.

People will see this, and act accordingly. Incentives matter, after all. How long do you think it will take before you've set a ceiling and a floor, so nobody tries too hard, and nobody worries too hard about failure? How long before those two meet?

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: hugolp on July 06, 2011, 05:45:15 AM

You give them enough free market so that the most intelligent ones get more money and create more wealth and you give them enough government intervention so that the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution is not that high.

So, to be clear, you think that good decisions leading to wealth and bad decisions leading to poverty is a problem that needs to be solved. Is that correct?

Findeton

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: myrkul link=topic=25938.msg331310#msg331310

So, what you want, is the most wealth, in as many hands as possible, yes?

OK. So, just for S&G, let's redistribute all the wealth from everyone, to everyone. Start conditions= Gini coefficient 0.

What happens when people make bad decisions? Invest poorly, lose money, etc?

And what happens when people make good decisions? Pick the right investments, trade their labor for money, etc?

Suddenly that coefficient starts creeping up... Those who made good decisions now have more money than those who made bad ones. What do you do to 'fix' that?

You give them enough free market so that the most intelligent ones get more money and create more wealth and you give them enough government intervention so that the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution is not that high.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

The Gini coefficient is defined. What represents your minimum is not defined. You are dodging myrkul question.

It's good enough for me.

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 05:41:24 AM

Minimum Gini coefficient.

So, what you want, is the most wealth, in as many hands as possible, yes?

OK. So, just for S&G, let's redistribute all the wealth from everyone, to everyone. Start conditions= Gini coefficient 0.

What happens when people make bad decisions? Invest poorly, lose money, etc?

And what happens when people make good decisions? Pick the right investments, trade their labor for money, etc?

Suddenly that coefficient starts creeping up... Those who made good decisions now have more money than those who made bad ones. What do you do to 'fix' that?

Findeton

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2011, 05:07:41 AM

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 05:54:17 AM

You know intervention damages the economy, and you're OK with it.

I know it might cause some inflation or unemployment rise, but it will redistribute wealth too. You just take into account total wealth of society, whilst I consider total wealth of society AND wealth distribution. You are trying to maximize one variable, I'm trying to maximize two variables.

Define "maximum wealth distribution" for me.

I defined "maximize wealth distribution", not "maximum wealth distribution".

To "maximize wealth distribution" is, for me, to minimize the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution.

Therefore, under that definition, you could say that the "maximum wealth distribution" happens when the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution is zero.

PD: Yeah, I know wealth and income are not the same.

hugolp

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1001

Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol

Quote from: hugolp on July 06, 2011, 05:45:15 AM

The Gini coefficient is defined. What represents your minimum is not defined. You are dodging myrkul question.

You can use the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution. So lets say I want to minimize the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution and at the same time maximize the total wealth of the nation.

Ok. Lets say that, go on.

Findeton

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: hugolp on July 06, 2011, 05:45:15 AM

The Gini coefficient is defined. What represents your minimum is not defined. You are dodging myrkul question.

You can use the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution. So lets say I want to minimize the Gini-coefficient of national income distribution and at the same time maximize the total wealth of the nation.

hugolp

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1001

Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 05:41:24 AM

Minimum Gini coefficient.

The Gini coefficient is defined. What represents your minimum is not defined. You are dodging myrkul question.

Quote from: JoelKatz

Exactly. So you only give music lessons to the people with the least musical talent.

Hahahaha. Actually it would be to almost everybody, but the joke is still valid.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 05:41:24 AM

Minimum Gini coefficient.

Exactly. So you only give music lessons to the people with the least musical talent.

Findeton

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2011, 05:07:41 AM

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 05:00:59 AM

You know intervention damages the economy, and you're OK with it.

I know it might cause some inflation or unemployment rise, but it will redistribute wealth too. You just take into account total wealth of society, whilst I consider total wealth of society AND wealth distribution. You are trying to maximize one variable, I'm trying to maximize two variables.

Define "maximum wealth distribution" for me.

Minimum Gini coefficient.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

You know intervention damages the economy, and you're OK with it.

I know it might cause some inflation or unemployment rise, but it will redistribute wealth too. You just take into account total wealth of society, whilst I consider total wealth of society AND wealth distribution. You are trying to maximize one variable, I'm trying to maximize two variables.

Define "maximum wealth distribution" for me.

Findeton

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 03:41:23 AM

You know intervention damages the economy, and you're OK with it.

I know it might cause some inflation or unemployment rise, but it will redistribute wealth too. You just take into account total wealth of society, whilst I consider total wealth of society AND wealth distribution. You are trying to maximize one variable, I'm trying to maximize two variables.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 03:41:23 AM

-Another way I see minimum wages actually "hurting" economy is when, because of the minimum wage increase, the employer rises the price of the service to his clients so inflation rises. This anyways represents a wealth redistribution mechanism and, if the minimum wage is not very high, it's not a big problem to me.

How does this illustrate the benefits of a minimum wage?

Of course, if the employer doesn't rise the price of his products because of the minimum wage increase, that also helps economy. In any case where the job is not eliminated because of the minimum wage increase, I'd say that there's a benefit to society (because of wealth redistribution), if minimum wages are not excesive. My objective is not to have the wealthiest society, just a wealthy enough society with a good enough income distribution. I'm social democrat, which means I do not want an absolutely free market, nor an absolutely intervened/planned economy, but a mix of both worlds.

Or this, for that matter. The employer will increase the price of his products, I've watched it done. (hell, I helped change the signs) Jobs will be eliminated, I've seen it done.

The scariest thing is right here: "My objective is not to have the wealthiest society, just a wealthy enough society with a good enough income distribution. I'm social democrat, which means I do not want an absolutely free market, nor an absolutely intervened/planned economy, but a mix of both worlds."

You know intervention damages the economy, and you're OK with it.

Please give me an example of a minimum wage increasing prosperity.

Findeton

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2011, 03:22:38 AM

Nope. You've responded to others', but not presented your own. So, feel free to do so now, or prove me a fool by quoting the one you posted earlier.

Quote from: Findeton on July 06, 2011, 03:11:48 AM

-Another way I see minimum wages actually "hurting" economy is when, because of the minimum wage increase, the employer rises the price of the service to his clients so inflation rises. This anyways represents a wealth redistribution mechanism and, if the minimum wage is not very high, it's not a big problem to me.

Of course, if the employer doesn't rise the price of his products because of the minimum wage increase, that also helps economy. In any case where the job is not eliminated because of the minimum wage increase, I'd say that there's a benefit to society (because of wealth redistribution), if minimum wages are not excesive. My objective is not to have the wealthiest society, just a wealthy enough society with a good enough income distribution. I'm social democrat, which means I do not want an absolutely free market, nor an absolutely intervened/planned economy, but a mix of both worlds.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2011, 03:09:24 AM

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2011, 03:09:24 AM

You don't understand what I'm saying there. I'm just saying that if a worker can get the job done for $7.25 an hour, the employer should never hire Joe and Tom for $5.25 an hour and that fact has nothing to do with minimum wage. I'm just saying that in that case your scenario is absurd if your objective is to evaluate the costs of rising the minimum wage.

Then evaluate the benefits for me. Paint me a scenary.

I already did, somewhere inside this thread. Find it, I'm sure you are intelligent enough to find it.

Nope. You've responded to others', but not presented your own. So, feel free to do so now, or prove me a fool by quoting the one you posted earlier.

Findeton

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

You don't understand what I'm saying there. I'm just saying that if a worker can get the job done for $7.25 an hour, the employer should never hire Joe and Tom for $5.25 an hour and that fact has nothing to do with minimum wage. I'm just saying that in that case your scenario is absurd if your objective is to evaluate the costs of rising the minimum wage.

Then evaluate the benefits for me. Paint me a scenary.

I already did, somewhere inside this thread. Find it, I'm sure you are intelligent enough to find it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM