record inequality

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: record inequality

95 smallish countries like Iran and Iraq could probably take down the USA. I'm sure we'd put up a helluva fight but still.... scary thought.

Well, that all depends on whether they fight fair and square like a proper army in standing formations in the open field (like the British RedCoats) or cheat and hide behind trees and bushes wearing civilian clothes in a disorganized fashion (like the American revolutionaries)

[newnewthing]

Re: record inequality

are outrageous bonuses what's best for shareholders? you need to attract the best to make the most profit apparently. No one seems to think about attracting those with low moral fibre willing to increase long term risk for short term concentrated gain in their hands, that would be a problem with markets and we don't want to think about that.

That has never been my experience. Private companies almost always look to the longer term. As for "outrageous" bonuses, I've always felt companies should pay their employees more when the company outperforms its competitors. And less when they don't. Companies that pay so much they are consuming monies that don't incent in excess of the pay bonus are badly managed.

Another way of putting it is that a company should always pay the CEO less than what they are worth. Same for any other employee. Successful companies tend to be the ones that have the most capability of empowering their employees to be more productive and hence justifying raising their pay.

The problem mostly arises in large public companies with board directors having little skin in the game. Because of the proxy rules public companies shareholders seeking representation must follow, the ability of groups of shareholders to elect dissidents to the boards is effectively nil.

However, this gives a competitive advantage to smaller companies when competing with the giant, public, sloths so it ain't all bad.

[raja]

Re: record inequality

Hi raja. Thanks for sharing your moral viewpoint. An invitation to share my moral stance can be a dangerous thing, because I find it difficult to summarize in few words. That's why I put off responding for a bit.

I prefer governance by the consent of the governed. This is a subjective statement of value.

. . . .

My vote is whatever it takes to have a cohesive and open civil society in which as many citizens as possible feel they have a fair shake.

. . . .

I read your post, and found some of it difficult to grasp. I suspect this is because your mind runs a little deeper than mine. :confused:

I cannot understand your distinction between "moral" and "practical".
"Moral" means "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" (definition from wiki). One of the meanings of "right" is "appropriate, perfectly suitable; fit for purpose."
"Practical" means "being likely to be effective and applicable to a real situation; able to be put to use."

To me, there is no "practical" difference between "moral" and "practical" behavior. Action that is "appropriate, perfectly suitable, fit for purpose" means that it is "being likely to be effective and applicable to a real situation; able to be put to use."

I also have trouble with your viewing the parable as a one-variable problem.

Let me carry the parable a few steps further:

Average is becoming weaker through lack of adequate nutrition.
But one day Stronger falls out of a tree gathering coconuts and breaks both arms. Suddenly, he is no longer able to harvest his own food, much less prevent Smarter or Average from having a fair share of the coconuts.

Average is now more powerful than Stonger. He realizes that if he now helps Stronger to survive, Stronger would recover and probably resume his selfish ways, leading to Average's death. So he smashes Stronger's head with a large rock . . . and derives some enjoyment from destroying his tormentor. :eek:

Average, may not have been as strong as Stronger, but he was always more physically powerful than Smarter. He relizes that Smarter did not suffer as he did during Stronger's oppression, and therefore Smarter must have had a secret source of food that he did not share with Average. Average then smashes Smarter's head with a large rock . . . and again deriving a good deal of satisfaction in exacting (Old Testament) justice. :eek:

Shortly thereafter, Average is picked up in a canoe by several beautiful women from a tribe whose men had died of a mysterious illness, and Average becomes the happiest man in the world.

Had Stronger or Smarter shared the available coconuts from the outset, they would have enjoyed a different fate. They were too short-sighted to imagine a future in which the tables could turn. Life is unpredictable, and in this case it would have been in Stronger's and Smarter's "practical" interests to "do the right thing" and share with Average.

I am not in favor of a more equitable distribution of wealth because "Human life is sacred." I am not religious, as I find religions arbitrary and fanciful. My idea of an Economic Bill of Rights is based primarily on the fact that I do not like to see others suffer. I believe this is a human genetic predisposition shared by many mammals. (If you can decode the religious terminology -- which is often obscure -- I believe this is what underlies several religious teachings. The evolution of Hinayana to Mahayana Buddhism, for example, was characterized by a realization that compassion was a natural trait of the highest state of man . . . and those who suffer from Ignorance have this other-oriented human capacity impaired. Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," meaning that those who focus primarily on personal gain are incapable of realizing the divine nature of life.)

IMO, the Do-Unto-Others philosophy is the wisest course, whether it's in one's personal life or in the formulation of societal laws.
Most of the rich probably did not achieve their wealth from being wise, but merely clever, so we cannot expect wisdom from them, and are seeing the "practical" results of their behavior now . . . .

All that being said, and despite perhaps some philosophical differences, I am glad to see we arrive at the same end result. I am in complete agreement with your comment, "My vote is whatever it takes to have a cohesive and open civil society in which as many citizens as possible feel they have a fair shake."

[ASH]

Re: record inequality

I read your post, and found some of it difficult to grasp. I suspect this is because your mind runs a little deeper than mine. :confused:

I don't think our different perspective has anything to do with the depth of the thoughts -- probably just a difference in how we frame the discussion.

I cannot understand your distinction between "moral" and "practical".

...

To me, there is no "practical" difference between "moral" and "practical" behavior.

Let me explain myself with an example along the lines that you provided. There are cases in which the stronger may victimize the weaker with impunity, and benefit from doing so. In most historical cases of which I am aware, there was no "comeuppance" for slave-owners in slave-holding societies. Slave-led rebellions were, I think, fairly infrequent and generally unsuccessful. Exploiting slave labor was eminently practical, yet many would argue that it was immoral. For instance, in the history of England, religious abolitionists who thought slavery "immoral" were pitted against wealthy commercial interests who profitted handsomely from the slave trade. In my view, the "moral" impulse to abolish slavery was the result of a generalization of the type I described in my earlier post. From an anthropological standpoint, the moral impulse to "regard all men as brothers" rises from a practical need to cooperate in society. However, the "all men" part is the generalization which makes the moral more than an expression of practical interest. The underlying practical interest is to "regard all men (with whom cooperation has a better outcome than conflict) as brothers."

As a minor semantic side note, I am what you might call a "materialistic fundamentalist", which is to say that I only believe in absolute physical laws. In common conception, morality is regarded as having some absolute meaning external to the individual -- the idea that there is a right and wrong by some objective standard. From my standpoint, the only absolutes are physical constraints imposed by the structure of the universe, and moral judgements do not fall into this category. (If there is a diety who sits in judgment of us, then I am wrong about this point as regards the structure of the universe; I am an agnostic, so I acknowledge that I may be mistaken.) Since I regard morals as subjective values, I cannot insist that someone's morals be practical, any more than I can insist that someone like the taste of vanilla. That is why I use the word "moral" as shorthand for a subjective value judgement that expresses a preference relative to human conduct and personal choices, as distinct from an objective calculation of practical self-interest. As stated above, I believe that our subjective moral preferences are largely shaped by practical forces which select for certain memes of practical value to the societies which transmit them, but that is a different statement than saying the memes (morals) are themselves always practical in the form that is transmitted (which often includes generalization).

I also have trouble with your viewing the parable as a one-variable problem.

Let me carry the parable a few steps further:

...

Now that you have given Average some power, I think it better reflects modern reality, and would not characterize it as a single-variable problem.

All that being said, and despite perhaps some philosophical differences, I am glad to see we arrive at the same end result. I am in complete agreement with your comment, "My vote is whatever it takes to have a cohesive and open civil society in which as many citizens as possible feel they have a fair shake."

I personally believe that as far as cooperation is concerned, it is less important to agree about why we want something, than it is to agree that we want the same thing.

[jk]

Re: record inequality

i would like to add a note to the discussion of morality and practicality here. i use the term "instant karma" to encompass the notion that you are affected by your deeds. to murder requires living the life of a murderer, with the psychological as well as social consequences thereof. i am not assuming here, for example, that a murderer will feel guilt. but to be a murderer, i assert, requires and/or perhaps fosters or at least is likely to be associated with a limited capacity for empathy, a limited imagination in one's thinking about the experiences of others. it coarsens experience. in similar fashion, one's deeds reflect but at the same time shape one's character and thereby also affect the experience of one's own life. a richer, more textured life [viewed either in terms of information content, entropy, or aesthetics] requires a richer, more textured system of behavior. i also have the thought that by acting, by choosing my actions, i am learning and/or defining who i am.

[flintlock]

Re: record inequality

Historically speaking, the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small majority was always the norm. It's really the natural progression of things when you think about it. Like in Raja's coconut example, eventually one person ends up with the coconuts. Only in recent times did we get this idea that we all were entitled to the good life. The 16th century Russian serf could not even comprehend expecting that. It was only when he faced starvation that he would rise up. I think the FIRE economy gave the common man a taste of the good life( even if it was all on borrowed money) and lowered the threshold for his becoming very pissed off. I don't know where exactly that will fall, but I bet we see it some time in the next few years.

Like throughout history, from time to time there will be a reset when things get too lopsided. ( By reset I mean revolutions, riots, and economic calamities). The top 1% are rich enough to insulate themselves from the mob. Its the next 10% that should be concerned. Because they will be the ones that pay the price, even if its not their fault.

[raja]

Re: record inequality

ASH:
In most historical cases of which I am aware, there was no "comeuppance" for slave-owners in slave-holding societies.

I'm no history expert, but wasn't the outcome of the Civil War a "comeuppance" for the South?
(Of course, this one example does not deny your point, since you said "most" cases.)
Most revolutions, while not under circumstances of outright slavery, indicate that many rulers who imposed excessive control have not acted in their own self interest.

The underlying practical interest is to "regard all men (with whom cooperation has a better outcome than conflict) as brothers.

In a previous post you said, "It seems tautological to me that an individual's acceptance of the social contract should be governed by their self-interest, as judged by whatever metric they, as individuals, choose to apply" and "Is that a moral outcome? My answer is yes -- but only if Stronger and Smarter truly are better off without Average, living in a state of anarchy on the island."

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that it's "desirable" (moral, right, proper, O.K.) for one group to "victimize" another(e.g., slavery), as long as it is in their best interest, i.e., they receive no comeuppance?

I am what you might call a "materialistic fundamentalist", which is to say that I only believe in absolute physical laws. In common conception, morality is regarded as having some absolute meaning external to the individual -- the idea that there is a right and wrong by some objective standard. From my standpoint, the only absolutes are physical constraints imposed by the structure of the universe, and moral judgements do not fall into this category.

Our views are similar, but I would not call myself a "materialistic fundamentalist". I'd like to think that my philosophy is so all-encompassing and not just limited to the material ;)

In my observation, the universe and it's contents operate by a homeostatic of interdependent opposites, as is demonstrable by on every level of existence: night/day, hot/cold, the peaks and troughs of wave forms, positive/negative electricity, north/south magnetics, male/female, rich/poor, animal/vegetable, inflation/deflation, etc. (This is the ancient Chinese understanding of yin and yang as the "order" of the universe.) In societal terms, this manifests as self and other.

The homeostatic balance between opposites is dynamic -- otherwise there would be no action in the universe. Everything oscillates between two poles. As far as humanity is concerned, there are those that are naturally more self oriented, and those that are more other oriented, just as there are active and phlegmatic, strong and weak, fat and thin, intelligent and less intelligent. Each have their niche and perform a needed function . . . and there must be a balance. For example, aggressiveness is valuable in protecting the tribe, but being too aggressive leads to foolhardy exploits that may result in the destruction of the tribe. In the latter case, those over-aggressive genes are extinguished, returning to the mean range.

When the rich get too rich, the poor rise up. When the strong get too strong, the weak band together and rebel. This is the natural law.

There really is no logical rationalization for any action . . . nor as you say, any external value to judge by. However, there is an internal genetic imperative within each of us. The rich are compelled to be selfish, and the poor are compelled to rise up and crush them if the greed goes too far. This functioning of natural law encompasses the world of ideas as well. Those ideologies that are too far from the mean are extinguished.

Selfishness is very practical . . . to a degree, as is compassion. They are two sides of an inseparable coin, and are always within a range of homeostatic balance. IMO, 5% of the population controlling 60% of the wealth is going outside the acceptable range, and I'm against it. The rich will resist, and therefore may be forced to share the coconuts . . . or worse, suffer head reduction at the rock-wielding hands of Average. :eek:

I personally believe that as far as cooperation is concerned, it is less important to agree about why we want something, than it is to agree that we want the same thing.

I agree.
Given the variation in human nature, agreeing to the same thing is rare enough, let alone having alignment of motivation.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: record inequality

Here is a nice piece on the rich and how things have changed over the years. http://pensionpulse.blogspot.com/200...th-bubble.html

No solutions are apparent from the article. It is of idle interest that the fortune of John McAfee, of computer virus fame, has dropped from $100M to perhaps $4M.

[ASH]

Re: record inequality

In a previous post you said, "It seems tautological to me that an individual's acceptance of the social contract should be governed by their self-interest, as judged by whatever metric they, as individuals, choose to apply" and "Is that a moral outcome? My answer is yes -- but only if Stronger and Smarter truly are better off without Average, living in a state of anarchy on the island."

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that it's "desirable" (moral, right, proper, O.K.) for one group to "victimize" another(e.g., slavery), as long as it is in their best interest, i.e., they receive no comeuppance?

I could have phrased that better. What I was saying is that I think it moral for Stronger and Smarter to decline to enter a social contract with Average to re-distribute the coconuts, if they are so inclined, even if that means Average will perish. I shouldn't have stressed the question of whether Stronger and Smarter "truly are better off without Average," because that has more to do with my assumptions about their motivations, whereas the operative moral issue (for me) is their choice.

There are two parts to this: the morality of the decision not to cooperate with Average and the morality of Average starving.

My moral statements were that individuals should be free to choose with whom they cooperate and with whom they compete (willing participants in any social contract), and that individuals are entitled to the material wealth won by their own productivity.

Based upon what you had originally written of Stronger and Smarter's motivations, it was my understanding that -- all considered -- they would prefer not to cooperate with Average. This was the origin of my original comment about the parable being a "one-variable" problem: by explicitly stating that Stronger and Smarter weren't inclined to share coconuts with Average, I thought you had implied that after weighing all considerations, Stronger and Smarter had come to this decision. Later, when you elaborated that Average might crush Stronger's skull with a rock while Stronger is sleeping, you introduced a variable that would likely make Stronger and Smarter reconsider whether to cooperate with Average. However, regardless of their motivation -- and regardless of what their choice is -- I think Stronger and Smarter should be free to choose whether or not to enter into a social contract with Average. To repeat: I thought you had already established that Stronger and Smarter chose not to cooperate with Average; I was merely saying that they were under no moral obligation to do so.

As regards Average starving, I understood the parable to say that the three island inhabitants had differing abilities to procure coconuts. I didn't get the impression that Stronger and Smarter were actually taking coconuts away from Average, but rather that Stronger was able to win any direct competition if everyone went for the same coconut and Smarter was able to obtain coconuts more efficiently. I thought you were saying that Stronger and Smarter were out-competing Average for access to a limited supply of coconuts, rather than depriving him of the fruits of his labor. The supply of coconuts, after all, was apparently fixed, and no mention was made of Stronger or Smarter needing Average to get them. That being the case, in my view, it is moral that Average starve if he isn't productive of enough coconuts to sustain himself (moral, but not what I would choose to happen).

In short, I didn't regard Stronger and Smarter as victimizing Average. If Stronger and Smarter take coconuts from Average that he has produced, that is victimization. My earlier point about slavery is that I find slave-keeping immoral, yet there were many for whom slavery was highly practical. You will note that I am not saying it is moral to victimize someone if you can get away with it; in bringing up "comeuppance" I was trying to demonstrate why I disagree that morality is the same thing as practicality. (And, incidentally, the eventual Civil War was not "comeuppance" for countless slave-holders who profitted from slavery in generations prior. Since I see both morality and practicality as pertaining to individuals and their choices, it makes sense to me to assess both from the standpoint of individuals. It would be hard to argue that the eventual Civil War was a practical dis-incentive to keep slaves generations before the War, for people who could have had no way of knowing the War would eventually occur.)

At the root of this conversation, much earlier in the thread, you say:

In my value system, I'm not even O.K. with someone who works hard earning $155,000/year (your example) while another person who works hard (or wishes to work but cannot find work) cannot afford "basic" necessities for their family. There is a finite pie, and if one person gets a big slice while another goes wanting, I consider the one getting the big slice sucking the life out of the latter, albeit not necessarily intentionally being a parasite.

To come full circle, in my view, need isn't the same thing as moral entitlement, nor is willingness to be productive the same thing as actually being productive. The fact that there is a finite pie has nothing morally to do with how it should be divided. If the pie is generated by the productivity of individuals, then my subjective moral stance is that its distribution should follow its production. Further, the individual producers may choose to redistribute the pie or not, as I believe morally that government should be by the consent of the governed. Personally, I think the pie needs to be redistributed for practical reasons, but not because those who produce too little to enjoy a decent standard of living are morally entitled to more. (And I think there are those who produce very little, who nonetheless win a large portion of the pie, who should receive less... but this may best be accomplished by the decline of the FIRE industry, rather than allowing it to run unfettered and taxing and redistributing its unwarranted profits.)

[Southernguy]

Re: record inequality

what happens the day all the sheep have been eaten?

LW posted the correct question.
Marx said a long time ago that the most important contradiction of capitalism was that between social production and private appropiation of goods produced.
That can be translated as the contradiction between a vast productive capacity and limited market for such.
So, it s not chance that general capitalistic crises arise after historical time frames of extreme income concentration.
At that point, all the sheep have been eaten, it s time to make some redistribution of wealth, real one, so more people are able to buy.
During more than a decade the gap was filled with credit, which was itself generated via asset bubbles.
It seems to be that this is no longer possible. The mass of outstanding credit in the system is too vast for that.
Of course, crisis, or depresion or whatever, must be extreme for the rich class, 0.01% of population to accept the sheer fact that to survive as such class they must share some of their richess, which of course has nothing to do with being more able, more working or anything of the sort than the rest. Generally it has to do with inheritance, relations, and greed.
Exceptions exist, of course.
So, we are in the previous stage of a time for income redistribution of some kind.
I dont know how is is going to happen, or when, or who is the politician
(the next Roosvelt) to make it happen. But it is an historical need, and as that it shall be fulfilled.

[cjppjc]

Re: record inequality

This is a very good thread. It makes a person think to themself, am I that moral person. Is my morality subjective or objective? Can my morality change with the times? or is it born in me.

What does Paul mean when he says:

For I know that in me - that is, in my flesh dwells no good thing: For to will is present with me. But how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not. But the evil that I would not, I do.

Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?



I need a reminder. Someway to remember who I want to be.

[raja]

Re: record inequality

To come full circle, in my view, need isn't the same thing as moral entitlement, nor is willingness to be productive the same thing as actually being productive. The fact that there is a finite pie has nothing morally to do with how it should be divided. If the pie is generated by the productivity of individuals, then my subjective moral stance is that its distribution should follow its production. Further, the individual producers may choose to redistribute the pie or not, as I believe morally that government should be by the consent of the governed. Personally, I think the pie needs to be redistributed for practical reasons, but not because those who produce too little to enjoy a decent standard of living are morally entitled to more. (And I think there are those who produce very little, who nonetheless win a large portion of the pie, who should receive less... but this may best be accomplished by the decline of the FIRE industry, rather than allowing it to run unfettered and taxing and redistributing its unwarranted profits.)

ASH,

If you were Average, would you rather have Stronger adhere to your value system . . . or mine?

If he follows your system, you die (if I understand you correctly).
If he follows mine, you live.

[flintlock]

Re: record inequality

Here is a nice piece on the rich and how things have changed over the years. http://pensionpulse.blogspot.com/200...th-bubble.html

No solutions are apparent from the article. It is of idle interest that the fortune of John McAfee, of computer virus fame, has dropped from $100M to perhaps $4M.

Maybe McAfee would not have lost his ass if his company quit being so sleazy and doing things like charging credit cards without authorization.( like they did to me last week)

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: record inequality

Maybe McAfee would not have lost his ass if his company quit being so sleazy and doing things like charging credit cards without authorization.( like they did to me last week)

Maybe you should think that through again.

http://pensionpulse.blogspot.com/200...th-bubble.html

In the late 1980s, he founded McAfee Associates, the antivirus software company. It gave away its software, unlike its rivals, but charged fees to those who wanted any kind of technical support. That decision helped make it a huge success. The company went public in 1992, in the early years of one of biggest stock market booms in history.

But Mr. McAfee is, by his own description, an atypical businessman — easily bored and given to serial obsessions. As a young man, he traveled through Mexico, India and Nepal and, more recently, he wrote a book called, “Into the Heart of Truth: The Spirit of Relational Yoga.” Two years after McAfee Associates went public, he was bored again.

So he sold his remaining stake, bringing his gains to about $100 million.

Seems he found some other way to lose his money.

[flintlock]

Re: record inequality

what happens the day all the sheep have been eaten?

In the past the wolves would starve . Now they just get a bailout and retire to their private island.

The economy is not going to get better any time soon. There's not enough sheep left to feed the wolves.