Finally, an economist who has re-discovered the basis for ALL successful economic systems, and therefore the basis for global human advancement. Not to mention the reason that the economist profession exists at all (although to tell the truth, I'm not exactly sure what the "interest of society" is that an economist promotes) ;)
Well and truly said, good Doctor! Human liberty is absolutely and utterly interconnected to economic liberty. One cannot thrive (or even long exist) without the other as the Chinese Communist regime has discovered.
Also, your daughter showed amazing talent as a high schooler. What an extraordinary gift.
Smith has an apt quote for many situations, including the current state of Silicon Valley. From Theory of Moral Sentiments: "It is from our disposition to admire, and consequently to imitate, the rich and the great, that they are enabled to set, or to lead what is called the fashion. Their dress is the fashionable dress; the language of their conversation, the fashionable style; their air and deportment, the fashionable behaviour. Even their vices and follies are fashionable; and the greater part of men are proud to imitate and resemble them in the very qualities which dishonour and degrade them. Vain men often give themselves airs of a fashionable profligacy, which, in their hearts, they do not approve of, and of which, perhaps, they are really not guilty. They desire to be praised for what they themselves do not think praise-worthy, and are ashamed of unfashionable virtues which they sometimes practise in secret, and for which they have secretly some degree of real veneration. There are hypocrites of wealth and greatness, as well as of religion and virtue; and a vain man is as apt to pretend to be what he is not, in the one way, as a cunning man is in the other. "
Remember: the vast majority of investors in venture capital comes from institutional investors. For example, state pension funds. While people complain about individual wealth, it’s funding their retirement and other benefits. Success is in our best interest to raise the standard of living.
Would the answer possibly be that by using positive discussion such as this, word of mouth, social media, and further publication do what it has done in the past in the recognition of such problems and also their solution?
Say that a billionaire, or family of billionaires, donates $3,000 tax-free to each household, every year. Over the working lifetime of a householder, call it forty years, this amounts to $120k, and more if the retirement years are included. That's rather generous.
Society could easily spread the wealth around more evenly, but politicians.
Thank you John! This is a most learned piece of information as indicated by the others who have commented. As discussions like this and in your other endeavors, you provide the "energy" and the "mass" necessary to enable the solutions to the economic, political and historic quandaries of the present day." "E=MC squared"!
"I generally stick to the practical case, not the moral case. We do not have to argue freedom vs. prosperity. We are lucky that the cause and effect is devastatingly true. But the moral case for freedom adds to its practical case. And underlies it as well."
I long ago came to the conclusion that every question of policy, every question of what government should do, was "get out of the way" and "stop meddling", because freedom provides the flexibility that encourages innovation, and there is no other way to progress. Those who would restrict progress tomorrow for the sake of the status quo today are hypocrites who would scream bloody murder if anyone applied their stasis retroactively.
I think there is a moral case to be made about capitalism vs socialism/communism. We need to make it. Not compromise. We might try to be "nice", but the other side isn't very nice. Especially when they take power
Your daughter is a gifted artist! Art... and opera and ballet bring happiness to so many. (But why did so many take such offense to one knucklehead's comment? Parents aren't teaching about sticks and stones anymore)
A billionaire can escape condemnation by condemning wealth in others. For example a certain Formula One driver who earns about a hundred million a year, and is my hero when he's on the track, but off the track, who tweets daily about inequality.
Finally, an economist who has re-discovered the basis for ALL successful economic systems, and therefore the basis for global human advancement. Not to mention the reason that the economist profession exists at all (although to tell the truth, I'm not exactly sure what the "interest of society" is that an economist promotes) ;)
Well and truly said, good Doctor! Human liberty is absolutely and utterly interconnected to economic liberty. One cannot thrive (or even long exist) without the other as the Chinese Communist regime has discovered.
Also, your daughter showed amazing talent as a high schooler. What an extraordinary gift.
Smith has an apt quote for many situations, including the current state of Silicon Valley. From Theory of Moral Sentiments: "It is from our disposition to admire, and consequently to imitate, the rich and the great, that they are enabled to set, or to lead what is called the fashion. Their dress is the fashionable dress; the language of their conversation, the fashionable style; their air and deportment, the fashionable behaviour. Even their vices and follies are fashionable; and the greater part of men are proud to imitate and resemble them in the very qualities which dishonour and degrade them. Vain men often give themselves airs of a fashionable profligacy, which, in their hearts, they do not approve of, and of which, perhaps, they are really not guilty. They desire to be praised for what they themselves do not think praise-worthy, and are ashamed of unfashionable virtues which they sometimes practise in secret, and for which they have secretly some degree of real veneration. There are hypocrites of wealth and greatness, as well as of religion and virtue; and a vain man is as apt to pretend to be what he is not, in the one way, as a cunning man is in the other. "
Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas. (Like they say.)
Remember: the vast majority of investors in venture capital comes from institutional investors. For example, state pension funds. While people complain about individual wealth, it’s funding their retirement and other benefits. Success is in our best interest to raise the standard of living.
I have a positive statement and a normative question:
The US has seen wealth concentrate since the 1980s; the magnitude is debated, but assume it’s significant.
Too much wealth concentration (hard to define a specific level) poses real political risks.
How do we attack that issue while realizing the social benefits of individual wealth?
Would the answer possibly be that by using positive discussion such as this, word of mouth, social media, and further publication do what it has done in the past in the recognition of such problems and also their solution?
You assume wealth has concentrated. Why?
Do you like inflation? :-)
Say that a billionaire, or family of billionaires, donates $3,000 tax-free to each household, every year. Over the working lifetime of a householder, call it forty years, this amounts to $120k, and more if the retirement years are included. That's rather generous.
Society could easily spread the wealth around more evenly, but politicians.
Thank you John! This is a most learned piece of information as indicated by the others who have commented. As discussions like this and in your other endeavors, you provide the "energy" and the "mass" necessary to enable the solutions to the economic, political and historic quandaries of the present day." "E=MC squared"!
Thanks, and especially love the more art and less do-goodyism.
Seems "self evident." It's demoralizing to see how many of our own citizens just can't/won't see it. Shame on us and our "educators."
"I generally stick to the practical case, not the moral case. We do not have to argue freedom vs. prosperity. We are lucky that the cause and effect is devastatingly true. But the moral case for freedom adds to its practical case. And underlies it as well."
I long ago came to the conclusion that every question of policy, every question of what government should do, was "get out of the way" and "stop meddling", because freedom provides the flexibility that encourages innovation, and there is no other way to progress. Those who would restrict progress tomorrow for the sake of the status quo today are hypocrites who would scream bloody murder if anyone applied their stasis retroactively.
I think there is a moral case to be made about capitalism vs socialism/communism. We need to make it. Not compromise. We might try to be "nice", but the other side isn't very nice. Especially when they take power
Your daughter is a gifted artist! Art... and opera and ballet bring happiness to so many. (But why did so many take such offense to one knucklehead's comment? Parents aren't teaching about sticks and stones anymore)
A billionaire can escape condemnation by condemning wealth in others. For example a certain Formula One driver who earns about a hundred million a year, and is my hero when he's on the track, but off the track, who tweets daily about inequality.